Many parts of former United Microelectronics Corp chairman Robert Tsao's (
First, Tsao says that Taiwan, or the Republic of China (ROC), cannot hold an independence referendum because it has already stated that it is independent. Holding an independence referendum would mean that the ROC is not an independent state. This is a contradiction. However, he neglects the fact that holding a unification referendum is also a contradiction.
The premise for unification is that there has been a separation, and if Taiwan were to hold a unification referendum, it would mean recognizing that Taiwan is part of China on the assumption that it is merely temporarily separated from China and unification would someday follow. By holding a unification referendum, Taiwan would degrade itself into being a territory separated from China rather than being an independent state even before the referendum were held, not to mention the fact that the international community would get the impression that the country that separated is the People's Republic of China (PRC).
Second, Tsao proposed a law rather than a treaty. Formal agreements between two or more states are treaties, while a law is a legal agreement established within a nation.
If the document to be signed by both parties is a law, then the cross-strait relationship has already been defined as domestic rather than international relations. In other words, Taiwan will have surrendered and denied its independence even before the law has been signed.
Third, Tsao didn't set a stop-loss point for Taiwan, instead allowing for China to ask Taiwan to hold a unification referendum once every decade an unlimited number of times until Taiwan is unified with China.
This is clearly unfair to Taiwan. Why is the Taiwanese public only allowed a referendum on whether they want unification or not? Tsao's proposed unification referendum will only have meaning if a unification referendum is not passed and China therefore recognizes Taiwan as an independent state.
Finally, Tsao said the Chinese government should make public the details and concrete implementation of its proposal for a "high degree of autonomy" for Taiwan along with the rights and obligations that Taiwanese whould enjoy after unification with China so that they can make a well-informed decision.
Tsao might not be aware of the following history: In 1951, the PRC forced the Tibetan government to sign the Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet so that China could occupy Tibet in the name of autonomy. Although the Dalai Lama today only seeks meaningful autonomy for Tibet rather than independence, even that is impossible. When the Chinese government promises Taiwan a "high degree of autonomy," can they really be trusted?
Kuo Cheng-deng is director of the Graduate Institute of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine at National Yang Ming University.
Translated by Ted Yang
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