In response to US President George W. Bush's statement last week that he opposes comments or actions by President Chen Shui-bian (
Chen revealed his feelings toward Bush when a CNN correspondent asked if he "felt hurt, frustrated or even infringed by what Bush said." Without challenging Bush as to why he echoed Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's (溫家寶) condemnation of Taiwan's attempts to "split with the mother land," Chen said he appreciated the Bush administration's earlier pledge to do "whatever it takes to defend Taiwan" and insisted that US-Taiwan relations were stable.
There is no doubt that the US and Taiwan share universal values of democracy, freedom and hu-man rights, but when it comes to the question of national interests, it is ironic that such an "alliance of values" can be distorted.
The notion that Chen's push for a "defensive referendum" to deter China's missile threat and military force constitutes an explicit action to change the status quo is nonsense.
What exactly is the status quo? Who is entitled to define the status quo? The status quo of the Strait is a world in which an authoritarian regime refuses to renounce the use of force against a democratic country. The status quo is a growing number of missiles deployed alongside China's southeastern coast targeting Taiwan. The status quo is Bei-jing's relentless efforts to sabotage Taiwan's sovereignty by promoting its own ideas of "one China" and "one country, two systems."
China's unilateral actions to intimidate Taiwan are clearly changing the status quo and therefore coincide with the situation contained in Article 17 of the Referendum Law (公民投票法),which states that, "the president has the rights to hold a defensive referendum when the nation is faced with an external threat or a change to its sovereignty, through resolution by the Executive Yuan."
Washington may overlook the danger that Chen believes exists and portray Chen's concerns as nothing but election talk. Nevertheless, 23 million Taiwanese cannot wait until such a threat becomes a clear danger.
While the US employs double standards to brand Chen a provocative, reckless troublemaker, whom has been trying to rock the boat of Sino-US relations, it owes both a reason and an apology to Taiwan as to why its people are being deprived of the right to say no to China's saber rattling.
The "alliance of democratic values" between Taiwan and the US should be a respect of people's free will to make their own decisions. The "alliance of democratic values" should not kowtow to an authoritarian leader.
What Bush should really contemplate is the extent to which his administration can strike a balance between safeguarding the US' national interests and a fully fledged democratic Taiwan while engaging in building a constructive, candid and cooperative relations with China.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration made the wrong choice when it appeased Beijing at the expense of sacrificing its long-term commitment to Taiwan -- a country that has been steadfastly supporting a US-led campaign on global terrorism and post-Iraq humanitarian aid -- and a country that has been counting on US defense assistance to main-tain peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
If international realism is indeed the only rationale behind such immoral treatment of a democratically-elected leader, then please, Mr. Bush, stop talking about how you plan to spread so-called American democracy around the world.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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