Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairman Yu Shyi-kun has said that the party's "Normal Country Resolution" is meant to restrain DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), who says that there is "a constitutional one China" and that this must be respected. There are quite a few people who feel that Hsieh should be controlled, not because he is pro-unification, but because they doubt his resolve to work for the nation's independence.
Because the road to independence is full of obstacles and cannot be accomplished immediately, we must pragmatically promote it in accordance with consistent objectives. But it is difficult to to strike a balance between these "consistent objectives" and "pragmatic promotion," and that is at the center in the dispute over the Normal Country Resolution.
Regarding political party systems, the US soft "broker party" system means there are no platforms, but only the policy platforms created during presidential elections. The mission-based, rigid social democratic parties in western Europe, however, promote distributive justice while protecting productivity and democracy. Giving considerations to long-term convictions, pragmatic policies and promotional strategies causes political problems.
When the DPP was established, it roughly followed the example of European parties with both a basic platform and an action platform. In 1999, then-presidential candidate Chen Shui-bian (
The political importance of the resolution was kept ambiguous, but it was basically placed somewhere between an action and a campaign platform.
In 2000, Chen made the "four noes" pledge in his first inauguration address, which was lambasted by DPP legislators. In order to stay in power, Chen proposed amending the party charter, allowing him to serve as party chairman.
Hsieh said at the time that the Taiwan Independence Clause had been replaced based on principle that newer legislation surpasses older legislation. This move accommodated Chen but resulted in a confusion in the party's policy structure. In addition to my opposition to the proposal, I also withdrew from the DPP National Congress, but the resolution still passed.
Without doubt, the DPP's concession then is key to the recent dispute over the "Normal Country Resolution." If the amended resolution isn't passed at the party's National Congress while the Taiwan Independence Clause has become an inactive old regulation, the party will have lost its ultimate values.
On the other hand, if the congress passes the resolution, it will give Hsieh a core policy to observe for his electoral platform and future administration to bypass the party's internal policy hierarchy.
Additionally, the confusion of this system means that the resolution will have to fulfill too many functions on different levels. With the uneven quality of the resolution, matching a mishmash of different regulations will become the resolution's main characteristic.
If the DPP doesn't clarify the distinction between the strategical arrangement of the party platform -- ultimate goals, mid-term goals and short-term promotion, there will be more disputes in the future.
Not only will the "Normal Country Resolution" be source of these disputes, but I'm afraid that every major election will generate a new resolution. In the long run, a mass of resolutions will pile up and the party's values and structure will become a total mess.
Lin Cho-shui is a former DPP legislator.
Translated by Ted Yang
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
RSS