A proposal by former United Microelectronics Corp chairman Robert Tsao (
Just like the pan-blue camp, Tsao opposed the government's proposed referendum on joining the UN under the name "Taiwan."
While the pan-blue camp was surprisingly quiet on Tsao's proposal, the pan-green camp, led by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), gave a passionate response.
But Chen responded a bit too fast and made an error. The main thrust of Chen's attack was to question why Tsao only suggested a unification referendum and not an independence referendum, and accused Tsao of being biased and in favor of unification.
Chen seems to have forgotten that when he announced his "four noes" pledge he took the stance that Taiwan's status is undecided.
And even though he said that if Taiwan is to pursue independence, sovereignty has to be established in a referendum, he has also said since 2005 that Taiwan is already an independent state.
A referendum on Taiwan's independence would thus be unnecessary.
Tsao argues that there is no need to hold an independence referendum because Taiwan is already an independent state. He had thus already answered Chen's question, and he used the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) 1999 Resolution on Taiwan's Future to do so.
It is clear that Tsao has thought a lot about the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty.
But this doesn't mean that his proposal is good.
According to his public letter in response to Chen's criticism, the main motive behind his suggestion was that a cross-strait war would break out if Taiwan declares de jure independence.
However, since China keeps threatening Taiwan with military action if that happens, believing that China will not launch a war if Taiwan gives up seeking de jure independence is a very questionable point of view.
Many people think that if we hold a referendum on a new constitution on changing the national title, Taiwan will achieve de jure independence. But Tsao clearly states that Taiwan will not become a de jure independent country unless the US, Japan and the EU recognize that Taiwan and China are two independent states without jurisdiction over each other or until Taiwan joins the UN.
It is thus clear that Tsao has thought hard on understanding the definition of de jure independence and that his interpretation is even more accurate than some radical independence supporters.
However, if de jure independence is interpreted this way, Tsao's worries about a possible cross-strait war will not stand as long as the US, Japan and the EU do not support UN membership for Taiwan.
For example, Taiwan can never become an independent country under international law. China thus cannot use a Taiwanese declaration of independence as an excuse for the use of force.
On the contrary, if the US, Japan and the EU support Taiwan's UN bid, Taiwan will legitimately become an independent country. But it also means that those countries will be willing to accept the consequences of opposing China.
The main reason China opposes de jure independence is that if Taiwan is part of China, a cross-strait war will be a domestic issue and therefore other countries cannot interfere in accordance with international law.
But if the international community recognizes Taiwan's statehood, Chinese military action against Taiwan will be considered an invasion.
China thus does not oppose Taiwanese independence to maintain cross-strait peace but to prevent Taiwan from gaining international protection following a declaration of independence, since that would give China a more beneficial position in the cross-strait war zone. From this point of view, Tsao has misjudged the issue.
Finally, although I don't support Tsao's proposal, I also disagree with Chen's criticism of him. In my opinion, Tsao's efforts have shown serious concern about Taiwan. We can disagree with his opinions, but we shouldn't doubt his motivations.
Instead, we should take his deeply felt opinions into consideration and create room for rational discussion about Taiwan.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Ted Yang
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS