The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is busy crafting a new resolution on "making Taiwan a normal country" to replace the party's existing "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." The proposal, together with the current resolution and its predecessor -- the "Taiwan Independence Clause" -- shows just how much the DPP's stance on cross-strait relations and the status of Taiwan has evolved over time.
The Taiwan Independence Clause was the fundamental principle upon which the DPP was founded. The clause underlined the DPP's founding ideals of pursuing independence and statehood for Taiwan. The ultimate goal was to have Taiwan formally declare independence under the name the "Republic of Taiwan." This ideal continues to be embraced and worshipped by many die-hard independence supporters, who view the party's subsequent modification of this stance as a sell-out.
For the party as a whole, modifying its platform on cross-strait relations was a hard but inevitable choice. Pressured on both sides by China and the US, a majority of Taiwanese feared that a formal declaration of independence would lead to war in the Taiwan Strait, and therefore preferred the so-called "status quo."
Just what exactly the "status quo" is is an interesting question, since it has kept on evolving. Taiwan's political "status quo" today is very different from that of decades ago. Simply put, preserving the "status quo" means Taiwan continuing to act as an independent country without calling itself such. The question is how long can Taiwan maintain this "status quo."
To implement and turn many of its ideals into reality, the DPP had to be elected to power first. Therefore, in 1999, the party passed the "Resolution on Taiwan's Future," which acknowledges that Taiwan is already an independent country called the "Republic of China."
That was a major but essential compromise in the face of public concern over what would happen if the DPP's presidential candidate, Chen Shui-bian (
While Chen and the DPP's victory in 2000 was the result of an interplay of multiple factors, including presidential aspirant James Soong's (
After more than seven years in power, Chen is nearing the end of his presidency. The DPP faces a tough battle ahead. Although former KMT chairman and Taipei mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
While DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (
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
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS