On Jan. 22, the Foreign Policy Research Institute published an interview with President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) conducted by Harvey Sicherman, the institute's president. In the interview, Chen said that "The Republic of China is a sovereign state .... The ROC effectively exercises jurisdiction over the islands of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ?? a fact no one can deny." He said, "Taiwan is not a part of, a local government of, or a province of any country." He also said, "We want to emphasize to the international community that, as a sovereign state, the ROC cannot be downgraded, treated as a local government, or marginalized by anyone."
In these statements, Chen is emphasizing the nation's current political status -- that it is the government of Taiwan, not the PRC, which effectively governs Taiwan, Penghu and the offshore islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Chen is countering Beijing's claim that Taiwan is part of China, or a renegade province of China, since the PRC does not at present exercise, nor has at any time ever exercised, control over Taiwan or the Penghu islands. What Beijing means is that Taiwan should be a part of China.
On Aug. 3 last year, Chen declared to overseas Taiwanese attending the World Federation of Taiwanese Associations conference in Tokyo that each side of the Strait was a sovereign state. That statement caused alarm in some quarters of Washington. Actually Chen was merely describing the current political status of the county, the fact that it is a de facto independent country, not subject to the effective control of the PRC.
None of these statements by Chen is in conflict with his other statements in regards to the country's future status. Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) has criticized Chen for his lack of vision for Taiwan's future. In fact, Chen has clearly enunciated his vision for the nation in his Dec. 31, 2000 address: "Bridging the New Century." Because "the people of Taiwan and China share the same blood, culture and historical background ...," Chen has appealed to the leaders in China to "take cross-strait economic, trade and cultural integration as a starting point for gradually building mutual trust ..." and "then jointly seek a new framework for permanent peace and political integration between the two sides."
Although Chen has not publicly explained what is meant by "political integration," it is clear he aims to give up the nation's de facto independent status in exchange for peace and a high degree of autonomy, perhaps an improved variant of the "one country, two systems" model. Beijing has already promised that after unification Taiwan can keep its armed forces and that no PRC officials will be sent to Taiwan. So despite the sad experience of Hong Kong, where the promise of 50 years of democracy is already in shambles, Chen's DPP government shares with Beijing a common vision of a prosperous future "one China."
Chen betrays his ignorance of the country's unique history when he says Taiwan and China share the same ethnicity and historical background. Due to his Sino-centric education, Chen does not fully appreciate the rich and diverse culture of Taiwan, which encompasses the culture and values not only of China but also of the Aborigines, Japan, the US and Europe.
Chen's world view is narrowly focused on China. This is why he is anxious to normalize relations with China and to pursue direct links, even though such links would damage the economy and jeopardize national security. A president of Taiwan who is determined to preserve the nation's sovereignty and hard-won democracy would insist as preconditions for negotiation of the direct link, that China must first renounce the use of force against Taiwan under international supervision, cease its military exercises in preparation for military action against the country and withdraw its short- and medium-range missiles targeted on Taiwan.
When Chen avers that Taiwan is a sovereign state, he is merely referring to its current, effective control of its territory. He does not mean that it is a fully independent, sovereign nation. In his inaugural speech, Chen promised that during his term in office that Taiwan will not declare formal independence, change its state name, codify the two states theory, hold a plebiscite to determine its future or alter the National Unification Guidelines.
All five actions he waived unilaterally fall within the authority of a sovereign state. By forfeiting these powers, Chen has marginalized the nation's status as a fully independent sovereign state, without consulting the wishes of the Taiwanese.
It is most unfortunate that in the global contest between the forces of freedom and repression, Chen's DPP government appears inexorably headed toward a political union with the repressive PRC. However, Chen has been consistent in his statements on the status of Taiwan. The key to avoiding confusion is to distinguish between his description of the country's present political status and his vision of a future "one China."
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS