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 an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday was handcuffed and escorted by police to the Taipei Detention Center, after the Taipei District Court ordered that he be detained and held incommunicado for suspected corruption during his tenure as Taipei mayor. The ruling reversed an earlier decision by the same court on Monday last week that ordered Ko’s release without bail. That decision was appealed by prosecutors on Wednesday, leading the High Court to conclude that Ko had been “actively involved” in the alleged corruption and it ordered the district court to hold a second detention hearing. Video clips
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that
RSS