Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate and New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) has called on his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) counterpart, William Lai (賴清德), to abandon his party’s Taiwanese independence platform.
Hou’s remarks follow an article published in the Nov. 30 issue of Foreign Affairs by three US-China relations academics: Bonnie Glaser, Jessica Chen Weiss and Thomas Christensen. They suggested that the US emphasize opposition to any unilateral changes in the “status quo” across the Taiwan Strait, and that if Lai wins the election, he should consider freezing the Taiwanese independence clause.
The concept of de jure independence was first proposed in the DPP’s original 1991 party charter. Written by Lin Cho-shui (林濁水) and other founding party members, the DPP’s “Taiwan Independence Clause” (台獨黨綱) proposes establishing a new constitution and a sovereign and independent Republic of Taiwan. Its objective is to break free of the shackles of the KMT’s autocratic regime and to deconstruct its ruling mythos.
However, the DPP platform faced its first challenge in the mid-1990s when Taiwan held its first direct presidential election. As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) saw the election as a precursor to Taiwanese independence, it fired missiles over Taiwan, resulting in the 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis. As the DPP platform became a point of controversy during elections, the DPP passed its “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future” in May 1999, tweaking the idea of independence by defining Taiwan as a sovereign country; although Taiwan’s Constitution calls the country the Republic of China, it is not subordinate to the People’s Republic of China. Any changes to the “status quo” must be decided by a public vote.
For the DPP, the “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future” has almost replaced the clause. When asked about Taiwan’s sovereignty, the DPP almost always quotes the resolution in response. However, as the DPP has not abolished the clause, it could mean it still intends to pursue formal independence, which some consider a source of instability.
The idea of Taiwanese independence has stirred controversy because the term covers a broad spectrum. It could mean establishing a new constitution for a Republic of Taiwan, or simply holding a presidential election — after all, why bother having elections if Taiwan is not independent? To the CCP, choosing any other way than conceding to its “one-China principle” means pursuing independence.
However, the DPP has proven through its actions and practices over the past two decades that it has shelved the Taiwanese independence clause. It is therefore unnecessary for Lai to declare that the party is relinquishing the clause to reassure the US and China. Even if the DPP were to do so, the CCP would find another excuse and say the DPP is harboring intentions for independence.
Although the CCP has always claimed that Taiwanese independence is the biggest obstacle to cross-strait exchanges, this is not so. When Lai took part in a symposium at Fudan University in Shanghai in 2014, he reiterated his pro-independence stance: The idea of Taiwanese independence existed long before the DPP came into being. Control Yuan President Chen Chu (陳菊) also visited Beijing in 2009 when she was the mayor of Kaohsiung. The CCP must have already known their stances and ideologies prior to inviting them. The only difference now is Taiwan’s governing party and the CCP’s political demands.
The idea of independence is a political stance that Taiwanese should safeguard and respect. By not letting the CCP define Taiwan’s democracy, Taiwan holds the reins to its identity and ideology. It is due to the birth of the independence clause that further depth has been added to the resolution. Although the political environment has largely evolved, keeping the clause in Taiwan’s arsenal is a good thing.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS