President Chen Shui-bian's (
China's policy on cross-strait relations is "peaceful unification with no renunciation of the use of force against Taiwan." With this two-faced tactic, Beijing vows to handle the issue peacefully while not ruling out military action. It has established criteria according to which it might take such action. These include, for example, intervention by foreign powers, a declaration by Taiwan of independence, incorporation of the "special state-to-state" dictum into the Constitution and Taiwan's participation in the US Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system.
In other words, Beijing's cross-strait policy can be interpreted as a "won't-rule-out" dictum -- which treats "peaceful unification" as the principle while not excluding military action.
In fact, this "won't-rule-out" dictum is an obstacle to mutual trust between the two sides. Taiwanese, however, are unlikely to misinterpret China's cross-strait policy as centered around an invasion of Taiwan, although most Taiwanese are indeed irritated by the dictum.
Chen's remarks, in fact, should be interpreted in the same way, as the statement was actually Taiwan's own "won't-rule-out" dictum.
Chen does not want to push for Taiwan independence. But he does not rule out the possibility of deciding Taiwan's future by a referendum. Imagine: If China really uses force against Taiwan, will the country be capable of using force to defend itself? Of course it would. Otherwise, what are our national defenses for? If Taiwan is capable of defending itself by force, why can't it declare independence by means of a referendum?
Chen's words echo the spirit of the Cold War doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD): "I won't declare independence if you don't attack Taiwan by force." They can also be interpreted as, "I will declare independence if you attack Taiwan by force." From a strategic perspective, such thinking is not wrong, and it tallies with Taiwan's interests. In other words, had it been properly handled, the statement might have annoyed China but would have been unlikely to cause any misunderstanding.
Unfortunately, however, Chen's rhetoric was clearly flawed. From the reaction to his remarks, it is clear that most media organizations -- both at home and abroad -- believe that Chen intended to declare Taiwan independence. As a result, his statement, essentially in line with national interests, has generated more problems than benefits for various reasons to do with diplomacy and international relations. Quite apart from the damage unwittingly done to cross-strait exchanges and other national interests, Chen may now find it difficult to shed the sobriquet "troublemaker" in the international community.
Cross-strait policy is a thorny issue. A wise politician would be cautious and express maximum goodwill, clearly understanding the bottom line of each side in order to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings that could lead to a major catastrophe. "Co-existence" and "prosperity" should be the watchwords.
It is incumbent upon Taiwan's ruling and opposition camps, as well as China, to interpret the "one country on each side" remark correctly. Chen's statement -- just like China's dictum not to rule out the use of force against Taiwan -- is the nation's bottom line.
Peace and prosperity across the Strait will continue if the two sides do not cross each other's bottom lines.
Lu Chi-yuan is a lecturer at Lunghwa University of Science and Technology.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS