It's hard to understand the logic and attitudes behind the argument that this nation's passports should only bear the words "Republic of China" (ROC) but not "Taiwan." It is beyond doubt that people living in Taiwan are different from those living in the PRC.
If the legislature or the opposition parties continue to claim that the ROC's territory includes China, this will certainly be an international joke. If they are really following the doctrine of the late president Chiang Ching-kuo (
Many Taiwanese traveling abroad have been mistaken for PRC citizens when they show their ROC passports. The government certainly needs to print the word "Taiwan" on passports in order to prevent such confusion, as well as the unnecessary trouble that ensues. This is also what the international community expects. Why should the Ministry of Foreign Affairs continue to hesitate over the matter?
The fact that some ministry officials continue to drag their feet on the matter reflects the fears they are harboring toward independence. They fear that by putting "Taiwan" on the passports they may be replacing "ROC" with "Taiwan" as the name of the country, and cause Taiwan to become "independent." Beijing may react strongly to this by sending out its military forces to attack Taiwan or its outlying islands. Is it going to be that serious? The government has the responsibility to make its citizens clearly distinguishable from PRC citizens in the eyes of the international community, and the passport is a good official instrument for doing this. Fears about a possible Chinese attack over this are far-fetched.
Remember the missile crisis of March 1996? Taiwan got through the incident intact, didn't it? So why worry so much about Beijing's response? The government should do what it must to safeguard the interests of its people, even if that means military risks. It can't take its cues from Beijing.
Beijing has never given up its authoritarian habits. It has never been willing to face up to reality. Decisions are always made by a handful of top cadres who have no concern whatsoever for the fact that sovereign power rests in the hands of the people. For Taiwan to try to communicate with them would be like trying to entertain an ox with a harp. Beijing's recent actions at the World Health Organization and the WTO show that Beijing has always viewed Taiwan as an enemy. It has invariably opposed anything that benefits Taiwan. So why should we care about the likes and dislikes of Beijing?
On the other hand, didn't the KMT advocate Taiwan as an independent sovereign state when it was in power? How come it has begun to echo the PFP's "one China" dictum since losing power? Does the KMT think it is worthwhile to pressure the government to accept the "one country, two systems" model just to win back power? Hasn't anyone learned a lesson from Hong Kong's painful experience?
The government should implement policies that are supported by public opinion. Surveys conducted by the foreign ministry show that more than 50 percent of the public supports putting the word "Taiwan" on the nation's passports. There's no reason for the government to keep wringing its hands over this issue. It should show some determination and do what is right for the people of this nation.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS