Post-elections Taiwan
In November last year, Taiwanese voters repudiated the poor performance, unclear policies, and improper employment of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) government as they heavily slapped the Democratic Progressive Party in the local elections. The results forced Tsai to resign as party chairperson and William Lai (賴清德) responsibly stepped down as premier.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) misjudged the situation and thought he could lead cross-strait relations. He intimidated Taiwan by refusing to renounce the use of force to achieve unification.
Tsai did a good job in response. She firmly refused and gave a strong refutation. Her vigorous response gained a positive response from Taiwanese.
It also aroused broad solidarity and support from the international community.
However, Xi should be thanked for powerfully debunking the deception of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which always said that the so-called “1992 consensus” meant “one China with different interpretations.”
It held up the Republic of China (ROC) as the “one China” solely to show off to Taiwanese, but dared not show the People’s Republic of China (PRC). However, Xi has officially shown that the KMT lied. How could China have a different interpretation of “one China”?
Unfortunately, the ROC on Taiwan is still ongoing even though the DPP is running the government.
When Tsai refuted Xi’s hegemonic declaration, she proposed “four musts.” The first is to recognize the existence of the ROC. Does the ROC exist today, and does it represent China or Taiwan? If it is China, then who is represented by the PRC? If it is Taiwan, what legal document proves that the ROC government was authorized by the [then-colonial] Japanese government as owner of Taiwan’s territorial sovereignty?
If the ROC does not intend to provoke the PRC, then is ROC the right name for Taiwan? No, the PRC would obviously object. The KMT certainly rejects it, too. There is only one political party in the world today — the DPP — that says Taiwan is the ROC and the ROC is Taiwan.
Why does the DPP insist on embracing the ROC? It is understood that it helps the governing authority to bypass the democratic process and suppress the people of Taiwan. That was why the DPP government boycotted the name-change referendum for Taiwan’s athletes at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.
According to the US’ Taiwan Relations Act, Taiwan does not belong to China at all, nor is it called the ROC. According to the law of war, China has not been granted territorial sovereignty over Taiwan. Military occupation does not constitute an automatic transfer of sovereignty and must wait for the signing of a peace treaty.
With presidential and legislative elections, and having a military, Taiwan has popular sovereignty and deserves basic human rights. This is not the national sovereignty or territorial sovereignty required by the international community and the UN. Taiwan is a putative state, but it is not an independent, sovereign nation.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
Political lifeline for Tsai
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has unwittingly thrown President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) a political lifeline. Following the recent local elections, it appeared that the Democratic Progressive Party’s star was on the wane.
However President Xi’s arrogance, belligerency and war mongering has turned the tide of support away from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
President Tsai did what many believe she has not done enough of — lead. She put Xi firmly back in his place and in the process gained considerable sympathy for Taiwan from the international community. The world is now seeing the Beijing regime for the ruthless monstrosity it is.
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) possible visit to China once his travel ban is lifted would also help the DPP. His views on the bogus “1992 consensus” would not resonate well with Taiwanese in the current climate. His loyalty to Taiwan and its democracy would be called into question.
President Tsai will need to normalize Taiwan’s status as a geopolitical entity, which might involve constitutional change.
I think Taiwanese are rather tired of being in limbo.
Gavan Duffy
Queensland, Australia
Ordeal with Facebook
On Monday, I was informed by Facebook that one of my posts contained “hate speech” and violated its Community Standards, and therefore I would be blocked from using Facebook for 30 days.
The post urged the government to tighten up the security clearance process against Chinese infiltration into the government, an exhortation frequently reiterated by the US government.
I did not feel that there was hate speech to any degree in my post and therefore requested a review.
An hour later, Facebook admitted the error and agreed that my post did not include any hate speech. It lifted the restriction on my account.
Having received a fair review and positive appeal, I posted the details of my Facebook ordeal to inform fellow users of the review process if they run into the same situation. After a few hours, Facebook once again blocked my ability to post with a different pretext of “unusual usage of Facebook.”
As an advocate of Taiwanese independence, it is evident that Facebook has anti-independence examiners, who abuse their authority and exercise political bias against Taiwanese.
Many other Taiwanese have reported similar occurrences. We have started collecting evidence of this abuse and if our rights to freedom of speech continue to be violated, we will take our case against Facebook to the US Congress.
Ted Lau
Taipei
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers