The opposition parties have repeatedly requested President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and government officials accept the principle of "one China, with each side free to make its own interpretation" (一個中國、各自表述) and admit that "I'm Taiwanese and I'm also Chinese" (我是台灣人、也是中國人). They have criticized the government, saying that the ruling party's pro-independence ideology is blocking the road to peace in the Taiwan Strait. Chen and his party have failed to defend their cross-strait policies, dividing the country further as each day goes by.
Both issues revolve around the question: who is the true representative of China? If the ROC is, it seems natural for us to accept the "one China" principle and to admit that we are all Chinese. On the other hand, if the PRC is the legal representative, we will hurt our national dignity by supporting the "one China" principle. Aren't Taiwan's president and premier becoming PRC citizens if they admit that they are Chinese?
Since the PRC has been recognized worldwide as the legal representative of China, demanding Taiwanese people to accept the "one China" principle and to admit that we are Chinese is, in former president Lee Teng-hui's
I believe the opposition parties are also aware of the risks of accepting the "one China" principle. When the KMT was still in power, then-chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC,
So the "one China" and "I am Chinese" issues involve Taiwan's national dignity as well as its diplomatic and cross-strait relations. Taiwan will not accept the "one China" principle unless the PRC respects the existence of Taiwan and stops trying to decrease Taiwan's international presence while constantly threatening it with military force.
Taiwan must be careful about the political trap posed by the "one China" principle. To stabilize and to further develop cross-strait relations, however, the DPP government should consider the principle of "one China with each side free to make its own interpretation."
Meanwhile, I would urge Chen not to follow the KMT's 1992 interpretation of the "one China" principle. His interpretation should be based on his own inaugural speech, which suggested that the leaders on both sides should jointly deal with the question of a "future one China"
The two sides might negotiate on all these issues. The National Unification Council
Tung Chen-yuan is a doctoral candidate at the School of Advanced International Studies, John Hopkins University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
With the Year of the Snake reaching its conclusion on Monday next week, now is an opportune moment to reflect on the past year — a year marked by institutional strain and national resilience. For Taiwan, the Year of the Snake was a composite of political friction, economic momentum, social unease and strategic consolidation. In the political sphere, it was defined less by legislative productivity and more by partisan confrontation. The mass recall movement sought to remove 31 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators following the passage of controversial bills that expanded legislative powers and imposed sweeping budget cuts. While the effort
When Hong Kong’s High Court sentenced newspaper owner Jimmy Lai (黎智英) to 20 years in prison this week, officials declared that his “heinous crimes” had long poisoned society and that his punishment represented justice restored. In their telling, Lai is the mastermind of Hong Kong’s unrest — the architect of a vast conspiracy that manipulated an otherwise contented population into defiance. They imply that removing him would lead to the return of stability. It is a politically convenient narrative — and a profoundly false one. Lai did not radicalize Hong Kong. He belonged to the same generation that fled from the Chinese
There is a story in India about a boy called Prahlad who was an ardent worshipper of Lord Narayana, whom his father considered an enemy. His son’s devotion vexed the father to the extent that he asked his sister, Holika, who could not be burned by fire, to sit with the boy in her lap and burn him to death. Prahlad knew about this evil plan, but sat in his aunt’s lap anyway. His faith won, as he remained unscathed by the fire, while his aunt was devoured by the flames. In some small way, Prahlad reminds me of Taiwan
RSS