After having been demoted to an opposition party, the position of the alien political power -- the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) -- on foreign affairs has undergone a big change. Close to the US and opposing China in the past, the party now cozies up to China and opposes the US. While close to the US and opposing China, they used US and Chinese positions to frighten local forces. Now their position has reversed, but they still play the same game. They aren't even above distorting or making up facts to achieve their goal of blocking the development of democracy.
They treat the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) position on the referendum issue in this way, and bestow the same treatment on President Chen Shui-bian's (
Beijing isn't muddle-headed and Washington even less so. Washington's response can only be described as downplaying such behavior, balanced and low key, avoiding interference in Taiwan's political wrangling instead of responding with great surprise or forceful interference.
In a question and answer session after a briefing on Sept. 29, US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher offered a complete assessment of Chen's call for a new constitution in 2006. Boucher's comment included the following three parts.
First, Boucher called Chen's statement an "individual campaign statement." This is due to the brilliance of both Chen and Washington. Chen made the statement at the DPP's anniversary celebrations, and provided a further explanation during a meeting of the DPP's Central Standing Committee. In other words, he clearly made these two statements in his capacity as DPP chairman and not in his capacity as president.
Having understood this point, Washington could naturally acknowledge them as Chen's stating his political opinion during a campaign, and as a vision for carrying out constitutional reform in order to realize democracy in Taiwan, rather than a policy to be immediately implemented.
Second, based on the definition of Chen's remarks as an "individual campaign statement," Boucher reiterated the US' stance that it "won't take a position on [Taiwan's] domestic politics." Competition in Taiwan's political process, how the parties attack each other and defend themselves, what choices voters make -- this is Taiwan's domestic business, and the US does not take a position on these issues.
Third, Washington made reservations for issues involving US interests. These are issues that the US feels are of fundamental importance to stability in the Taiwan Strait. The reservations Boucher cited are in fact the "four noes" that Chen pledged in his 2000 inaugural speech: "not to declare independence, not to change the name of Taiwan's government, not to add the state-to-state theory to the Constitution, and not to promote a referendum that would change the status quo on independence or unification."
Boucher said that "We have expressed our support and appreciation for that pledge in 2000, and his [Chen's] subsequent reaffirmations of it. And we would take it -- we continue to take it very seriously."
That was Washington's assessment. Anyone who necessarily must interpret it as "a warning" to Chen, a "deterioration in [US-] Taiwan relations," or as "creating trouble for the US" and other such nonsense, is not as cool-headed as are Washington officials. The US assessment mentions Chen's "four noes," but, more important, it doesn't "show concern" or "call for restraint," nor does it ask for "an explanation."
Judging from the level of Washington's reaction, the constitution statement is not as excessively sensitive as the referendum issue.
Washington brought up Chen's "four noes" because the US believes they affect the stability in the Taiwan Strait, but, more important, it did so because he made these statements in his capacity as president, and not as a presidential candidate or DPP chairman. There is nothing wrong with the US taking important declarations made by Chen in his capacity as president "very seriously."
The government and the DPP responded to Washington's reaction by reiterating the "four noes" pledge. In fact, both this pledge and the construction of a new constitution are very flexible, and they are not incompatible. The "four noes" are no to declaring independence, no to changing the national title of Taiwan, no to adding the state-to-state model of cross-strait relations to the Constitution and no to holding a unification or independence referendum. They are contingent on three premises.
First, that China does not launch a military invasion on Taiwan. Second, they are Chen's individual guarantees. Third, the validity of this pledge is limited to Chen's term of office. A first-term pledge does not automatically carry over into a second term.
And this is not all. There is no issue concerning the inclusion of the state-to-state model in the Constitution, and Chen does not have the power to change the national title or "declare independence." As for a referendum on the so-called unification-independence issue, he has only pledged not to initiate such a referendum, but he cannot stop the public from demanding one.
These issues should be decided by the people themselves; they can't be decided by Chen on his own. If the people of Taiwan want a unification-independence referendum, to change the national title, or declare independence, they cannot be restricted by Chen's pledge.
We should pay even more attention to the fact that Chen's four noes, ie, the pledge quoted by Washington, do not include a pledge not to amend the Constitution or create a new constitution. The Constitution was created without the participation of Taiwan. A foreign power forced it onto Taiwan in order to rule it -- an anachronistic, backward, decrepit constitution that no longer is functional or applicable to the current environment. It has already been amended six times.
Only if the people of Taiwan themselves were allowed the decision to create a thoroughly new constitution would we be able to demonstrate the superiority of Taiwanese democracy and its potential to develop further.
There is still no concrete decision on how a new constitution should be created, or what it should contain. The creation of a new constitution was not proposed by Chen in his capacity as president, nor was it proposed by the government. Chen simply pointed out the DPP's position and direction in his capacity as the party's leader.
The initiation and completion of a new constitution requires the relentless efforts of the Taiwanese people as well as their understanding of the concept of autonomy. The US may request that Taiwanese politicians make this or that pledge, but it cannot demand that the people of Taiwan give up democracy and their basic human rights.
With Taiwan already having entered the democratic era, issues such as a new constitution, a new national title, and unification or independence should be decided by the people. The government should expend its efforts on demanding that the international community, including the US and China, respect Taiwan's democratic mechanisms, and the rights and choices of the Taiwanese people.
James Wang is a Washington-based journalist.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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