The response from the pan-blue camp to President Chen Shui-bian's (
The the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-People First Party (PFP) alliance hopes to scare the public into believing that Chen wants to use the new constitution to change the country's name to "Republic of Taiwan."
By creating such fears, the pan-blue camp can stifle discussion about the necessity and legitimacy of a new constitution.
While this may be the most sensible tactic for the pan-blue camp to take ahead of next year's election, a new constitution is key to creating long-lasting peace and stability in Taiwan. The KMT-PFP alliance's argument -- that a new constitution would lead to Taiwanese independence and therefore the risk of war -- is full of coarse predictions and biased mistakes that need clearing up.
First, we shouldn't fight over words. Whether we are amending the Constitution or writing a new one, elements of the current Constitution will remain. Some countries have drawn up constitutions or achieved the same effect by amending the core articles of their original constitution, for example in the Netherlands and Finland. These countries maintained their original national titles after renewing their constitutions.
This shows us that the pan-blue camp's claim that drawing up a new constitution is tantamount to declaring independence or changing the national title is deliberately misleading. Since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in its 1999 "Resolution on Taiwan's Future" confirms that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, and that its name, according to the Constitution, is the Republic of China, there is no need to draw up a new constitution to declare independence for Taiwan.
Second, the question of whether peace in the Taiwan Strait will be maintained is not dependent on the good will of any one side, but rather on the international strategic situation, in particular US attitudes and China's real strength.
In fact, according to China's white paper on Taiwan policy published in 2000, the definition of Taiwanese independence doesn't end at "changing the national title" but includes "indefinitely postponing talks about peaceful unification."
Therefore, the blue camp's promotion of "one China" and the exclusion of the public's right to change the national flag or the national title via a referendum does nothing to protect Taiwan's sovereignty and leaves the country vulnerable to China's traps in the international arena.
If China continues to persist in its "one country, two systems" strategic goal, and Taiwan keeps blindly restricting itself, Taiwan will eventually be peacefully swallowed up by China.
Finally, a new constitution would lead to a deepening of democracy that can reform and protect Taiwan. Taiwan's Constitution is full of contradictions and compromises.
A new constitution could lay the foundations for a peaceful and stable constitutional system, improve the quality of democratic politics and national competitiveness, and allow Taiwan to join the ranks of normal, complete and mighty nations. This is the only undertaking that will protect the existence and development of Taiwan.
In the midst of intense campaigning, I'm not sure whether the pan-blue camp will agree that only those who fight for long-term goals instead of temporary gains will in the end be able to pass the test of history.
Yu Mei-mei is executive secretary of the DPP Strategy and Discussion Group.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS