The joint petition filed to the president recently by 14 national policy advisors, including myself, has prompted different interpretations, attesting to the Taiwanese people's deep concern about the cross-strait relations issue, which therefore deserves rational discussion. But it is necessary to clarify some of the viewpoints.
Some stated that the Economic Development Advisory Conference (
The petition was presented for reference before the work of the conference gets underway because the conference had a discussion group on cross-strait economic and trade issues.
Some suspected that the petition might trigger disputes over the unification-independence issue.
After a closer look at the petition, they will know that the idea of "one China under the ROC Constitution's framework" serves only as a basis for understanding and a common language needed by the two sides across the Taiwan Strait to reopen their dialogues.
In other words, the idea is a starting point for breaking the cross-strait deadlock without touching the sensitive issue of the two sides' status.
Still others questioned that the petition is aimed at establishing the three direct links (
In reality, the "one China" principle mentioned in the petition belongs to the abstract and "metaphysical" level, and therefore does no harm to Taiwan's stance and dignity.
Whether or not the three links should be established and "no haste, be patient" policy be relaxed are substantive matters. Since this part is related to Taiwan's economic interests, members of the Economic Development Advisory Conference should carefully deal with it.
Our petition is not intended to press the government.
Instead, we believe that we should stay firm on the "Taiwan first" perspective.
This petition, which promoted the one China framework under the Constitution, was motivated by the current bleak economic prospects and the cross-strait deadlock. We are worried that as this situation drags on, it may become much more difficult to salvage Taiwan's worsening economy. Therefore, we simply tried to seek solutions and provided suggestions to the government for reference. No ulterior motives were involved.
Hsu Wun-pin is a national policy advisor to the president.
Translated by Jackie Lin
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS