US Republican Stephen Yates, a friend of Taiwan, is questioning the Taiwanese people’s determination to become independent, but the reason is not only that the US and China are strongly opposed to the idea (“Taiwan not ready for independence,” Aug. 6, page 6).
Yates reportedly said that “Taiwan is not ready” and that if Taiwanese were “willing to trade their lives, assets and sacred honor for Taiwanese independence, they would win the support of the international community.”
This could be seen as a well-intended warning and the only question is whether there is any solid evidence to show that the Taiwanese “are not ready.”
Not long ago, Yates visited the Presidential Office in Taipei and he also met with many politicians both from the governing and the opposition parties.
Yates’ judgement, then, is based on the government’s opinion, and President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) wants to “maintain the status quo,” so it is not a matter of not being ready, it is a matter of not making preparations for independence at all.
From this perspective, perhaps Yates has only listened to the official position and ignored public opinion. A referendum in Taiwan would have nothing to do with the president or any political party: Everyone -— the president, legislators and all 23 million Taiwanese — has one vote.
Are the Taiwanese ready? There is no way to know. Taiwan has never held an independence referendum, so how could we know?
The people have a constitutional right to hold referendums and the president or the legislature have no right to continue to ignore the issue.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) spent the past 60 or 70 years making a mess of Taiwan. Is the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) now going to continue to do the same thing?
Passing the Referendum Act (公投法) amendment is a responsibility the DPP cannot shirk.
Let us also look at the two different international reactions Yates mentioned.
First, there is strong US opposition. Who is the US opposing? A referendum is the collective expression of public opinion. Are they opposing 23 million individuals?
Former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) UN referendum was initiated by the government, so the US could put pressure on the president.
This is a referendum that would be initiated by the public, and the public would vote in it and there is nothing the president or the ruling party could do to stop it, so who would the US oppose?
Then there is strong Chinese opposition. Will China be opposed? Of course it will. There is no need to wait for a referendum: It will be upset as soon as the amendment to the Referendum Act is passed. Do we Taiwanese need to worry? No.
Once the amendment has been passed, Taiwan will have one more bargaining chip when dealing with China, as it can hold an independence referendum whenever it wants. The people can also choose not to hold one and they can vote in support of it, or they can oppose it.
As China puts pressure on the nation, it must consider the reaction of Taiwanese. This is a reaction that is backed up by a whole warehouse full of gunpowder.
During the celebrations marking the founding of China’s People’s Liberation Army, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) threatened Taiwan, and the DPP’s response that he was “far removed from Taiwanese public opinion” was far too lame.
With an amended Referendum Act, “Taiwanese public opinion” would not be an empty word and China would need to give serious thought to it before making threats and rattling its sabers.
Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS