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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS