Before the campaign for the nation's presidential election has even been formally launched, the Chinese government warned Taiwan and the US; although it would have been wise to restrain itself from getting involved in Taiwan's elections so as not to repeat its mistakes from 1996 and 2000 when it campaigned against candidates it disliked. Beijing's leaders seem to lack wisdom and tolerance.
Faced with Taiwan's call for referendum legislation and a new constitution, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
Wen tried to intensify his intimidation by saying "We completely understand the desire of the Taiwan compatriots for democracy and a peaceful environment. However, when the leadership of the Taiwan authorities wants to separate Taiwan from Chinese territory, no Chinese will agree."
So far, Wen is the highest-ranking Chinese official to declare Beijing's formal stance on Taiwan's referendum legislation. It is generally believed that Wen's upcoming trip to the US, scheduled to begin on Dec. 7, is aimed at urging the US to suppress Taiwan's recent move toward independence.
Since China has never implemented democracy on its soil, Wen's understanding of it is poor. Holding referendums and writing a constitution are only two ways for Taiwanese people to exercise their political rights. They are not necessarily equal to Taiwan independence.
Furthermore, Chinese leaders don't understand what Taiwanese people want. It's China that is pushing Taiwan toward independence. In the history of interaction between the two sides, Taiwanese people have few happy memories. The leadership in Beijing must ask itself: Has China ever offered any effective incentives for promoting unification?
China has long attempted to oppress and suffocate Taiwan's diplomatic activities. The regime never ceases its efforts to intimidate Taiwan either through propaganda or military force. During the epidemic of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Beijing did not cooperate with Taiwan and concealed the reality of the SARS situation in China. When Taiwan needed a helping hand from the World Health Organization, China not only obstructed the process but also said "Who cares about you [Taiwanese]?"
Even in the economic arena, China spares no effort to lower Taiwan's status. To Taiwan's proposal to initiate the small three links, China said no. When Taiwan pushed for direct freight links, China refused to talk. Even those hundreds of thousands of China-based Taiwanese businesspeople, who function as a driving force behind China's bright economic performance, are in the eyes of the Chinese government and people are just cash cows to be milked.
Suppose that a man, upon breaking up with his wife, threatens her by saying "If you divorce me, I'm going to kill you." Most likely, the woman would divorce him and run as far away as she could. The same principle applies to cross-strait relations. If China mistakenly thinks that imposing pressure on the relationship can bring about reunion, the result may turn out to be just the opposite.
China does not need to "pay any price" to prevent Taiwan from moving toward independence. All it needs to do is change its attitudes and respect Taiwan's current status as an independent and sovereign entity. Let Taiwan have freedom. Take away the walls and the missiles across the Strait. Let people freely engage across the Strait and discover each other's merits and their common interests. Then there may be a chance to start the relationship anew.
Let bygones be bygones. After the two sides start to treat each other equally, perhaps they will reunite. Even if they don't, they would know each other well enough that the breakup wouldn't seem too bad.
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