Upon hearing the proposal of PFP Legislator Tsao Yuan-jhang (
Tsao was reported as saying that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait hold common ground on the issue of the Tiaoyutai Islands. How can that possibly be? The response of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs was that the islands are part of "Chinese territory." In contrast, the position of the Taiwan government is that the islands belong to the ROC. If the Taiwan government was right, then the only way these islands could also be part of "Chinese territory" would be that both they and Taiwan are Chinese territory -- that is simply untrue.
The ROC government on Taiwan has every right to assert claims over these islands on its own without conceding with respect to the Chinese sovereignty issue. After all, historical records dating as far back as the 1500's to the more recent post-WWII era consistently indicate that these islands have always been treated as accessories to Taiwan. Their disposition was usually treated as a side dish to the disposition of Taiwan. For example, in 1895, after the first Sino-Japanese War, China had ceded both Taiwan and these islands to Japan. In 1940, a jurisdictional dispute had arisen between Taiwan, then still a Japanese colony, and Okinawa over the Tiaoyutai Islands. A Tokyo court ruled in favor of Taiwan at the time. After WWII, again Japan handed over both Taiwan and these islands to the ROC government.
Under the circumstances, the Taiwan government is fully justified in its claim that the Tiaoyutais belong to whomever has a rightful claim over Taiwan. Since the ROC on Taiwan is an independent sovereign country, the Tiaoyutai Islands are obviously part of its sovereign territory.
Reportedly, many pan-blue lawmakers are pushing the government to send troops over to these islands. This is definitely out of the question. For one, thus far, Japan has not taken any military action. It would be highly dangerous and inappropriate to escalate the situation to that level. This is not to mention the fact that any military conflict or even tension between Taiwan and Japan over these islands may just give China an excuse and the golden opportunity for military intervention followed by a military takeover of Taiwan.
It is really funny to hear to some members of the pro-unification camp saying that if no military action is taken against Japan today, tomorrow it may take it upon itself to invade Taiwan. Between China and Japan, China is by far the greater military threat. No matter how much Japan may lust for any oil deposits that may be on or near the Tiaoyutais, it cannot possibly have the slightest interest about taking over Taiwan. For one, it will first have to deal with China, which wants Taiwan for itself, and the US.
The Taiwan government is absolutely right in saying that the matter must be dealt with through diplomatic channels and means. There is no point in acting in haste. After all, Taiwan has a much bigger enemy -- China -- lurking behind its back.
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
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,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS