For a long time, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) described the number of Taiwanese separatists as "a handful." If there were really only "a handful" of individuals who insist on Taiwanese independence, then the referendum to enter the UN would undoubtedly end in defeat.
Strangely, the KMT is nervous about a referendum that they claim is destined to fail, even going so far as to oppose the central government by insisting on two-step voting.
The US is exhibiting another kind of contradiction: For the last 20 years, it has frequently reassured China that it does not support Taiwanese independence. If it does not support independence, then it is none of the US's business, and Washington should be happily unconcerned.
Why has the US been anxious about Taiwan's referendum to the point of asking American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Stephen Young and AIT Chairman Raymond Burghard to convince Taiwan that the referendum is unnecessary, unbeneficial and would only cause trouble?
China and the US are anxious about the referendum to join the UN under the name Taiwan, but not at all concerned about the KMT's referendum to return to the UN. If Taiwan joins the UN, it is to peacefully exist on a mutually beneficial basis with China; yet if the Republic of China returned to the UN, then it must expel the People's Republic of China in order to do so.
The second option is clearly more troublesome, so why are China and the US so worried about the Democratic Progressive Party's referendum?
It's obvious that although the KMT calls it "a handful," it knows full well that the majority of Taiwanese support independence. This is a significant constraint on the KMT's efforts at a comeback and a major problem for the CCP's goal of peaceful unification.
Chinese political analyst Ruan Ming (阮銘) has said it is China that worries most about military action. Though Beijing claims it will invade if Taiwan declares independence, we are reminded of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) question to China's war hawks in 1996: "Fight? Fight? What if the economy breaks down, then what will we do?"
The US has the same problem. Though they claim not to support Taiwanese independence, they cannot avoid intervention if China invades Taiwan. This is why the US does not want Taiwan to "make trouble." What Washington really means is that Taiwan should not make trouble for the US.
Should we try to lighten the burden on the US and China by leaving Taiwan in a situation where it is continually oppressed or should we manage our own plight, leaving the US and China to deal with their own problems?
The answer is the latter, and the referendum is a great solution: It expresses the desire of the Taiwanese for formal independence, but does not immediately sink China and the US into an extremely problematic situation.
This is because even if the referendum were passed, Taiwan would not be given immediate UN membership and the national title would not immediately become "Republic of Taiwan." China would not have to worry about staging an immediate invasion and the US would not be embroiled in conflict right away.
They would, though, have to ask: "What's next?"
And when they start asking us for the next move, it indicates that we are no longer in the passive position of being oppressed. Hence the referendum also functions as a bargaining chip, allowing us to secure our ground and advance as we choose.
With this bargaining chip, we have a useful tool not only in resisting or negotiating with China, but also in responding to the neglect with which the international community has treated us, as evidenced by the claim that Taiwan is not a country, as made by Dennis Wilder, the Senior Director of Asian Affairs at the US National Security Council.
We can tell the world that Taiwan is not an international orphan and not a province of autocratic China.
Passing the referendum will set a restraint upon Taiwan's next president. If DPP candidate Frank Hsieh (
All things considered, the referendum to join the UN has many benefits and no detriments. We must break through the two-step voting trap set by the KMT and actively cast affirmative ballots.
Lee Hsiao-feng is a professor at the Graduate School of Taiwan Culture at National Taipei University of Education.
Translated by Angela Hong
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
RSS