The "confederation" with China that KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) advocated prior to the presidential election will be written into the party charter. This concrete declaration is different from former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) "state-to-state" model, and much more explicit than the Guidelines for National Unification (國統綱領). Due to the sensitivity of the year-end legislative elections, Lien's advocacy of a confederacy, implying the dawn of negotiations between the two sides, will lead to another wave of unification-independence battles at the end of the year -- something we all await in anticipation.
Ever since President Chen Shui-bian (
Unificationists in Taiwan have for a long time seen so-called confederation as the way to unify the two sides, whereas the Chinese government has long since set the tune by insisting on one country, two systems.
The understanding of a
confederacy among Chinese scholars is that it is not a true unification of two countries, and therefore violates the one country, two systems concept. They believe that, according to international legal theory, a confederation is made up of more than two sovereign countries uniting on the basis of international treaties, and it does not in itself contain the basic requirements for the creation of a nation. A confederation in particular does not possess any powers of enforcement, and countries are free to join or leave. The notion of two sides being joined in a confederation is no different than the idea of "two Chinas," or "one China, one Taiwan."
The Beijing government sees confederation as advocacy for Taiwan independence, but independence advocates see it as capitulation, since the sovereignty of Taiwan's defense and diplomacy will be restricted by China after its establishment. Historically, na-tions that have established confederations have always done so with the goal of establishing a unified country. Does Taiwan really have to be in such a rush to enter into a confederation and speed up China's unification? Confederation is therefore not accepted by the Chinese government, and independence advocates see it as a sell-out of Taiwan in order to achieve rapid unification. Seeing a confederacy as a miracle cure is overly optimistic, and if the KMT writes it into its charter at this time, they will only be giving the DPP a clear theme on which to base its election campaign.
The impasse between the two sides of the Strait stems from the ideological battle over sovereignty. China wants Taiwan to accept the one-China principle and the concept of one country, two systems. It wants Taiwan to capitulate and to reduce Taiwan's government to a local government.
Once Taiwan accepts the one country, two systems concept, the relationship between the two sides will change. It will look more like a confederacy or a commonwealth, even though some Chinese scholars have suggested that Taiwan keep its own defense forces. In Taiwan, however, regardless of whether it is the unificationists advocating a confederation, Chen championing the integrationist stand, or the independence proponents advocating the establishment of a new country, everyone wants to ensure equality between Taiwan and China. The two sides cannot therefore take the first step toward negotiations due to a lack of common ground.
National security, the preservation of national dignity and insistence on equality seem to have become the will of the public. Not even someone in favor of unification dares violate the idea of placing Taiwan first. Whenever there is a call-in TV-program and the opponent is a Chinese scholar, independence and unificationist legislators will always wind up on the same side, opposing the scholar. The cross-strait opinions proclaimed by each political party in Taiwan are not accepted by Beijing and therefore become just election platforms.
Fuzziness and flaccidity become the main characteristics of China policies. Making confederation a part of the KMT charter will not make it the foundation for future negotiations between the two sides, and Lien Chan's advocacy of a confederation will only become the DPP's target in the election battle.
Lee Ching-hsiung is a legislator for the Taiwan Independence Party.
Translated by Perry Svensson
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS