President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) told the World Association of Taiwanese Associations that "Taiwan and China standing on opposite sides of the Strait, there is one country on each side." He also called for the serious consideration of passing legislation on a referendum law.
His statements generated worldwide attention and sent shock waves through the Taipei-Washington-Beijing relationship. The initial reactions, both domestically and internationally, were strongly negative. Some focused on the contents of Chen's speech as the problem, others questioned the lack of advance consultation within the DPP as well as with decision-makers in Washington.
The motives behind such a bold announcement constituted greater concerns. However, timing may be the biggest question of all. "Why now?" It seems this is the only consensus both domestically and abroad regarding Chen's statements.
Despite their efforts to portray Chen's alleged slip-of-the-tongue as an explicit move to change the status quo and to move toward independence, Taiwan's opposition condemned Chen's comments largely from an economic perspective. They attributed the largest single-day drop in the stock market this year and the total loss of more than NT$500 billion from the market afterward to the president's intentional boat-rocking behavior.
Opposition camp leaders also took advantage of Chen's loose-cannon comments to criticize him as unwise and reckless. KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) described Chen's behavior as an attempt to create a "national disaster." PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) tried to correlate Chen's tough-tone stance with his predecessor Lee Teng-hui's (
But despite all the criticism, no one dared challenge the facts embedded with Chen's speech -- that Taiwan and the PRC are two separate countries with their own sovereign statehood. Can anyone from the KMT and PFP challenge this fact?
Just because the opposition could manipulate the timing of Chen's comments to gain political points in the short term does not mean they will win this argument. They overlook the fact that the DPP has taken the lead in safeguarding Taiwan's national sovereignty in an incremental and constructive way.
When it comes to foreign policy, the nation's best interests are always the top priority on the head of state's agenda. Some US analysts argue that there are factors beyond Taiwan and China that make Chen's latest statements unwelcome at this time in the US. Others questioned if Chen was trying to get himself re-branded a troublemaker in Washington's eyes.
One line of thought contends that the George W. Bush adminis-tration's assertion that it will do whatever it takes to help Taiwan defend itself has given Taipei the confidence it needs to test the "red line" and to engage in a more hard-line approach with Beijing. This argument maintains that such abuse of the Bush administration's goodwill is not in America's national interest.
It is generally acknowledged that Taiwan must rely on US support for its own democratic development and most importantly, the strategic partnership in the Asia-Pacific region. But even as a small country, Taiwan has its own national interest. Most people tend to interpret Chen's call for recognizing the status quo of cross-strait relations as merely a sentimental reaction to the Nauru's defection to Beijing on the same day he took over the DPP chairmanship.
That explanation, however, overlooked the extent to which China has been sabotaging Tai-wan's diplomatic relations and isolating it in the international arena. The Nauru incident was only a small piece of Beijing's global scheme to terminate Tai-pei's survival space.
The rude treatment of Chen at last year's APEC leaders' summit and the blocking of Taiwan's bid for WHO observer status this year illustrated Beijing's ignorance of Chen's consistent expressions of sincerity to normalize cross-strait relations. I believe there are even more incidents of Beijing's interference that have not been revealed for the sake of national security.
Also, Beijing's incorporation of the strategy of saber rattling to intimidate Taiwan into accepting the "one China" principle as a precondition for talks, has shown nothing but arrogant and irresponsible manners toward the 23 million people of Taiwan.
When rebuking Chen for violating his inaugural pledges to not declare independence or promote a referendum to change the status quo regarding the question of independence or unification, most people overlook the precondition of the whole phase. That is, "as long as the Chinese Communist Party regime has no intention of using military force against Taiwan," Chen would not initiate the above moves during his term in office. This is the real picture here. When the whole world asks Taiwan to refrain from fanning the flames, please do not set a double standard for the other side of the Strait.
For those who have unilaterally hampered the timing of Chen's factual description of the status quo across the Strait, please tell us -- when is the best time to tell the truth? Do we have to wait until our international space has been completely squeezed, our sincerity been absolutely abused and our safety been extremely endan-gered? Then would it be time for us to make clear that "Taiwan and China standing on opposite sides of the Strait, there is one country on each side?"
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
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