The nation's first televised election debate on Saturday represented a major advance for our democracy. The format of the debate was important, but even more important was the fact that it provided information on the candidates' campaign platforms, allowing voters to make an informed choice.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's (
Lien said: "Our stance is very clear. The two sides [Taiwan and China] should set aside the issue of sovereignty, increase exchanges and interaction, accelerate economic development and improve the livelihoods of the people. If we must talk about `one China,' then `one China' means the Republic of China."
Lien's plan to set aside sovereignty -- as a basis for cross-strait interaction and increased exchanges -- is dangerous. Sovereignty is a composite concept that includes a country's territory, people, constitution and so on. When a nation sets aside its sovereignty, in even the most innocuous context, it enters a vacuum in which the human rights and property rights of the people as well as the integrity of national territory can be harmed at the very moment other countries raise differing views regarding the country's jurisdiction. A country setting aside sovereignty is equivalent to it announcing its own demise.
Sovereignty must never be set aside. One must be resolute in defending it.
Taiwan must not engage in cross-strait interaction at the expense of its sovereignty. Once it denies its sovereignty, it will in effect have raised a white flag and surrendered. It loses a basis for negotiating with China.
It is utterly reprehensible for Lien to advocate this position. The nation's 23 million people should recognize that Lien's motive for wanting to set aside sovereignty is nothing more than political victory, and that he is perfectly willing to be an agent of capitulation to bring this about.
During the 2000 presidential election, Lien praised former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) "special state-to-state relations" dictum as a pragmatic stance compatible with cross-strait political realities. In 2001, however, Lien called for a cross-strait confederation. Last year, Lien returned to the old "one China, with each side making its own interpretation" formula. Now he is saying we should set aside our sovereignty.
During the 2000 election, People First Party Chairman James Soong (
A head of state must defend his or her country's sovereignty. Otherwise, the people of that country risk being bashed to a pulp at the hands of other countries. Taiwan must elect a president who can maintain this country's sovereign status quo, and who will not allow it to be changed for the worse even under the pressure of threats or military posturing. This is the most basic requirement of a national leader, a requirement that Lien seems to scorn, or else barely comprehend.
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