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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS