Reports that the US is opposing any form of Taiwanese referendum has caused the referendum debate to heat up once again. It is, however, quite surprising that the opposition and government have taken a common stance on opposing US interference in domestic politics.
What I find even more surprising is that it actually has been possible to create a debate about the US opposing any form of referendum in this country, since anyone with a little political sense knows that even if the US opposes a referendum on Taiwan's independence, it wouldn't use such strong language. The reasons why this debate has been heating up at this particular juncture are therefore questionable, for the following reasons.
First, the US has agreed to cooperate diplomatically with China in return for its help in dealing with North Korea. With Chinese demanding that the US clarify its stance on the Taiwan issue, the US leak to the press could be seen as a favor to the Chinese. Even though the leaked information may not coincide with the US position, it has fulfilled the US promise to China to make an "atypical" declaration of its position.
Second, the Kao Ming-chien (高明見) incident has weakened the position of the blue camp. It therefore leaked information that the referendum issue has become more serious, thus highlighting the dangers of the green camp playing with the independence issue in an attempt at saving the situation for the blue camp and unification.
Third, a legislative delegation is currently visiting the US. By the timely release of information that China has put a "red alert" label on a Taiwanese referen-dum, the US, on the surface of things, is simply forwarding the Chinese point of view. In fact, however, Taiwan has achieved longterm peace and stability by accepting US protection, and so long as Taiwan complies by paying its "protection fee," the US will not sit idly by.
This is why the heat has been turned up on the referendum debate at this moment. Add to this that the government cannot avoid holding a referendum next year, and it makes one wonder whether the US is playing its old game of using China to scare Taiwan into paying its fees a bit more willingly by threatening it with opposition to a referendum.
Leaving any conjecture about political plots to one side, my understanding is that the US is very firm in its position that any decision on the final status of Taiwan must have the unequivocal support of the Taiwanese people.
Taiwan is a sovereign entity, with its own people, government, land and sovereign wishes, and it of course has both the ability and the right to decide its own affairs through a vote. That China does not recognize this is another matter. The US is a nation that emphasizes the protection of democracy and freedom and it won't go so far as to openly interfere with or oppose the ability or rights of a sovereign Taiwan to vote to decide its own affairs.
To stress the "referendum spirit" in Taiwan's current political situation is recognition of the fact that the "Taiwan first" concept and the idea that residents should decide their own future have become the mainstream of public opinion. Given the strong Chinese pressure and the dispute over independence, we must actively search for a solution.
So, from a pragmatic point of view, how do we go about letting 23 million Taiwanese decide the future direction of this country? If we really want to realize this idea, we must pass the proposed referendum law (
Trong Chai is a DPP legislator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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