There have been strong reactions to President Chen Shui-bian's (
The reason why the "one country on each side" statement makes sense is that it puts into words the reality of the current cross-strait situation. Who can deny the fact that on one side of the Taiwan Strait we have the Republic of China, while on the other side, there is the People's Republic of China? Without a doubt, Taiwan does not have the ability to deny the existence of the People's Republic of China. If Taiwan herself denies that there is "one country on each side," should the name "Republic of China" be altered to "A Province of China" or "A Region of China?" In a spirit of denouncing anything Chen says, some politicians complain loudly that "one country on each side" ignores the bigger picture. If the Taiwan where they make their living is not a country, then what is it, pray tell? If the opposition parties reject their own country, then they are loyal to China and not to the people of Taiwan.
As for the referendum issue, that does not pose a problem in democratic countries. Since Taiwan is a democracy, what is so wrong about letting the people decide the great question about the country's future in a referendum? This cannot be opposed simply because China opposes it. If it were, then what sovereignty and independence would there be to speak of? China's statement that "referendum implies war" makes even less sense than its statement in 2000 that "Taiwan independence [leadership] at the helm implies war," since a referendum is merely a means of making a decision, not the decision itself. Even if there were to be a referendum on the question of unification or independence, why start a war before the outcome has even been decided?
What China fears is not the reason for a referendum, but the democratic procedure of a referendum in itself. If Taiwan wants to decide its future in a referendum, then if Jiang Zemin (江澤民) wants to stay in power after the 16th National Congress, he can no longer continue to operate behind closed doors, but must let the whole party and the entire people of China decide the matter in a referendum. Is this something that Jiang and the party can tolerate? The opposition of some Taiwan politicians to a referendum assists China's dictatorship in its machinations, whereas, as an advertisement for democracy in Taiwan it could in fact be used to promote change in China.
So there are reasons behind China's strong opposition to President Chen and his statements. On the one hand, the fundamental conflict between the two countries' political systems necessitates China's opposition. On the other hand, China is facing the difficult situation of a leadership change at the 16th National Congress, and Jiang needs the support of the army to become a modern-day Yuan Shikai (
The American reaction is also understandable. From the release of the Defense Department's report Military Power of the People's Republic of China and the first annual report from the congressional US-China Security Review Commission, we can see that the Bush administration is adopting a more aggressive Taiwan policy. The US, however, has been concentrating its efforts on its anti-terrorism campaign since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and lately it has been concentrating on a possible attack on Iraq. It is considering a restructuring of the Middle East order that will bring a comprehensive solution to the Middle East's problems, and, of course, hopes to avoid instability in Asia.
The Americans are more surprised than displeased by the "one country on each side" statement, and this is due to a lack of coordination. Speaking of which, it would also be more to the point to say that it is China that has created problems for the US, rather than to blame it on Taiwan. The reason for this is that China used big money to buy diplomatic recognition from Nauru, forcing the nation to sever relations with Taiwan, thereby creating an awkward situation for Chen as he took over as chairman of the DPP. China then used this situation to aggravate the tense cross-strait situation in order to distract the US. Similarly concentrating on the Middle Eastern situation and, perhaps, reluctant to contemplate additional complications in Asia, some Western media organizations initially did not understand this. They did not denounce the "one country on each side" statement, but were concerned that the challenge it posed to China would provoke an unreasonable response and that the US would not have the time to attend to the situation.
This is why, before Taiwan provided an explanation, the US took the view that Chen's statement was a response to the domestic political situation in Taiwan, and not a deliberate attempt to stir up trouble, in the hope that they would be able to find a way for both sides to back down. Still a few days later, the US and Western media changed their tune and condemned China's threats of armed force and showed an understanding of Taiwan's actions to counter China. Unless the political power struggle in China dictates otherwise, this whole episode can therefore be considered to be over and done with.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS