Taipei Times: The first-ever referendum in Taiwan failed to pass, with only 45.17 and 45.12 percent of the electorate voting for each question, rendering the controversial ballot invalid. What message do you think this sends to the international community?
Lo Chih-cheng (羅致政): It shows that the pan-blue camp's boycott of the referendum was successful. A lot of people in Taiwan still make their decisions based on what is advocated by their preferred political party.
However a significant number of people did cast their votes in the referendum, and combined with President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) winning his re-election bid, the significance of the referendum voting should not be overlooked either.
Chen's winning re-election has given him a general mandate to carry out his cross-strait policies. The referendum would have given him a more specific mandate, had it been valid.
If the referendum had been valid, this would have been a positive and clear message to both the US and China that we have the will and resolve to defend ourselves against China's missile threats. But because not enough people voted in the referendum to make the results valid, the message that the referendum could have sent was weakened.
TT: Both support for and opposition to the referendum within Taiwan has been strong. How do you think the international media perceive the referendum in Taiwan? Do they see it as a necessary step toward democracy or do they see it as electioneering?
Lo: Most international media have interpreted the referendum in Taiwan as electioneering. So even with the referendum failing to pass, the international community and media are happy to downplay this first failure.
The opposition has criticized Chen for linking the referendum to the election. But just because the referendum is motivated by political motives doesn't make it dirty. I think that democratic countries should be able to appreciate the pressure to get re-elected an incumbent is under.
TT: The referendum was preceded by an attempt to assassinate the president. How do you think this will affect the international community's view of Taiwan's referendum and election?
Lo: First, both candidates had a responsibility to calm their supporters. Both Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Lien Chan's (連戰) campaign staff and Chen's staff came out publicly to ask their supporters to remain calm and accept the election results.
That was the one thing that both candidates could have done to prevent a possibly bad impression of Taiwan's election.
TT: On the topic of cross-strait relations, do you think this referendum will change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait?
Lo: The term "status quo" is misleading. What is the "status quo" that everyone is referring to? China has been deploying its missiles for the last 10 years. Is that the status quo that we would like to maintain -- the increasing rate at which the number of missiles are targeted at us?
I think the referendum was trying to redress the imbalance in the Strait and was aiming to take the status quo back to when there were no missiles. It also points out that this status quo is unfavorable to Taiwan. It helps to point out the imbalance to the international community. Many countries in the world don't know that Taiwan is being targeted by hundreds of missiles.
The status quo is not the same as stability.
In fact, the status quo of China continually increasing the number of missiles targeted at us is destabilizing.
TT: Do you think the referendum topics address the sovereignty issue, as was suggested in the debates leading up to the referendum?
Lo: I think executing the referendum is itself a manifestation of sovereignty. It didn't need more specific wording to emphasize that we have sovereignty in engaging in talks with China.
TT: Do you think the relationship between the US and Taiwan has been damaged in the last few months?
Lo: The US administration was quite negative regarding Taiwan's referendum in the beginning, but it softened its tone, and its opposition to unilateral changes has been directed not only toward Taiwan but also toward China. But trust will have to be won back now.
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