In response to intense criticism from the Bush administration, the government has modified the two topics of the March 20 referendum, focusing on the desirability of acquiring anti-missile weapons and pursuing negotiations with China.
While somewhat mollified by the "flexibility" in the new language, a senior Bush administration official is wary that President Chen Shui-bian (
Such views, however, show that the Bush team is ill-informed on Taiwan's politics and is not sufficiently attuned to the country's precarious situation, facing not only China's growing threats of military aggression but also seditious forces closer to home. These forces comprise the pro-China alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP), the pro-capitulation media and some influential businessmen with heavy investment in China.
The proposed referendum is not just a symbolic opinion poll that will produce no visible effect on public policy. At this juncture in Taiwan's history the referendum is indispensable if the nation is to maintain the status quo, that is, its de facto independent status, free of Chinese control.
The KMT-PFP candidates never gracefully accepted defeat in the presidential election of 2000. The alliance has obstructed virtually every legislative proposal the DPP government has made. The people are fed up with unending partisan squabbles and government paralysis.
The Referendum Law (公民投票法) enables the electorate to break the stalemate in the Legislative Yuan on vital issues. It also functions as an insurance policy to protect Taiwan's sovereignty. Once this historic referendum takes place, the law can be modified so that no change in the status quo can ever be implemented without the assent of the majority of the citizenry, regardless of which political party is in power.
While the military balance is steadily and rapidly shifting in favor of China, many people in Taiwan, including government officials, academics, the media and the general public seem oblivious to the impending danger. The referendum is a wake-up call to make people realize the need to bolster national security and prepare people psychologically for the potential use of force or other coercive measures by the People's Liberation Army (PLA).
Referendums provide the mechanism for the people to directly express their choice on important issues. It can deepen democracy by addressing deficiencies in the legislative and executive structures. If used judiciously and preceded by informed debate, referendums can also serve to forge a national consensus and consolidate the national will on such vital issues as the choice between freedom and servitude.
The March referendum may also call the attention of the international community to China's expansionism and its ambition to annex Taiwan by whatever means necessary. It is hoped that all peace-loving democracies will urge China to renounce the use of force against Taiwan and to respect the right of its 23 million people to determine their own future without outside interference, a right enshrined in the UN Charter.
China has long insisted that any dialogue with Taiwan must be preceded by acceptance of its claim that Taiwan is part of it. The March referendum can highlight the fact that it is this unreasonable precondition which prevents any substantive negotiations from taking place.
Bush administration spokesmen have advised Taipei that a referendum serves little useful purpose, that dialogue is a better approach. Such remarks show the Bush team is either confused or ill-informed. Surely the US government is not suggesting that Taiwan should unilaterally alter the status quo by surrendering its sovereignty to the Chinese? If the Bush administration is so keen on dialogue, it should tell China to drop its preconditions.
The US should refrain from interfering in Taiwan's domestic politics and refrain from micro-management of the referendum's wording. A critical stance toward Chen and the referendum would be counterproductive, since a KMT-PFP victory in March could well result in a drastic disruption of the status quo, such as unilateral surrender within a couple of years. Remember KMT Chairman Lien Chan's (連戰) proud declaration during his visit to Washington: "Thank God I am 100-percent, pure Chinese."
If the Bush administration is genuinely concerned about PLA adventurism in reaction to either the referendum or the March election outcome, it should build up a robust deterrence posture in the vicinity of the Taiwan Strait, as mandated by the Taiwan Relations Act and recommended by the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review which was published shortly before Sept. 11, 2001.
Certainly the war against terror is important. But Washington may imperil its significant strategic interests in East Asia by failing to act in time.
Li Thian-hok is a commentator based in Pennsylvania.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS