The history of Taiwan has been shaped by successive violent invasions: China’s Qing Dynasty, the empire of Japan and the Republic of China are examples of foreign powers that plundered Taiwan, leaving it damaged and its people scarred.
The passing of time presents an opportunity for yesterday’s “outsiders” to become today’s “insiders.”
However, the desire to find peace and protect one’s home must not be based on the “status quo” of the vested interests of those who forcefully invaded the island.
The Democratic Progressive Party calls itself Taiwan’s first “localist” party. In order to live up to this image, it must restore the process of transitional justice so that those individuals who plundered Taiwan are brought to justice. Most important of all, the natural rights of Taiwan’s Aborigines must be returned to them.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) on Aug. 1 last year delivered an official apology to Taiwan’s Aborigines on behalf of her government at the Presidential Office Building.
During her speech, Tsai acknowledged that Aborigines are Taiwan’s original inhabitants, with their own language, culture, customs, land and sovereignty rights and that successive political regimes sent military expeditions to plunder their ancestral land, violating their rights and interests in doing so.
Tsai said she hoped to clarify the facts and find reconciliation so that all the peoples of Taiwan can coexist in a peaceful, harmonious and multicultural society. It was a significant step in the right direction.
In the past few years, the dispute surrounding the Council of Indigenous Peoples’ draft bill, “A method for the demarcation of Aboriginal land and tribal realms,” means that the nation has yet to see whether the Tsai administration has the will and resolution to fulfill its campaign promises.
The origin of the dispute centers around two key issues: consultations on the exercise of the right to consent and the definition of traditional Aboriginal territory.
Article 21 of the Indigenous Peoples Basic Act (原住民族基本法) states that: “When governments or private parties engage in land development, resource utilization, ecology conservation and academic research in indigenous land, tribe and their adjoin-land which owned by governments, they shall consult and obtain consent by indigenous peoples or tribes, even their participation, and share benefits with indigenous people.”
Although the council drafted its bill in accordance with that clause, privately owned land was removed from the definition of traditional Aboriginal territory, which provoked a furious response from Aboriginal communities.
According to the government’s wording, the exercise of the right to consent would violate private property rights guaranteed under the Constitution, and that is why privately owned land was excluded from the definition of traditional Aboriginal territory.
From the point of view of Aborigines, it is an incontrovertible historical fact that they were the first inhabitants of the island and that their traditional land was established before the formation of a state.
State and privately owned land stems from a system of land ownership and property rights that is a product of modern society, and these rights might even include land that was unjustly appropriated.
If the government consents to the transfer of state-owned land, but excludes privately owned land, this would be a new form of exploitation, and it would not help clarify historical facts or be a sincere process of reconciliation.
Not only has Tsai not made good on her promises, some key government officials have even played a lead role in mobilizing opposition to the reconciliation process and tried to stir up fear among the public.
The legitimacy of a localist government is most closely linked to the restoration of historical justice.
As such, it should not pursue a course that will result in the fragmentation of Aborigines’ traditional land based on the public and private ownership model that was established at a later date.
The government should not be propping up the unjust “status quo.”
It needs to communicate better with the public and promote public debate to clarify the definition of traditional land and create legislation or amend existing legislation to implement Aborigines’ right to traditional land.
The Tsai administration must understand that a person’s bond to their nation is directly related to their ability to participate in the construction of country and nation.
In a nation whose systems and structures have historically been built on violence and looting, it is the duty of a genuinely localist government to investigate and rectify any remaining forms of injustice: this includes land.
Although land is a limited resource, a system designed around reciprocity and mutual benefit — and that recognizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of traditional Aboriginal land — is the only way to start building the kind of nation that can truly be called a home by all of its people.
Translated by Edward Jones
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS