President Chen Shui-bian (
In this election, Chen obviously has the initiative in terms of cross-strait relations. He has repeatedly explained to China and the international community Taiwan's wishes and the blueprint for its status in the cross-strait relationship. China may not accept that framework and blueprint in their entirety. If it rejects them, it can come up with a stance of its own. The two sides of the Taiwan Strait can seek a mutually acceptable consensus in these exchanges. Of course, direct negotiation -- not hollering at each other from afar -- is the best approach.
Chen's cross-strait policy does not follow the self-limitations imposed by the former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government which, faced with China's military threats, took its cue from Beijing and constrained itself inside a small circle, waiting for an opportunity for the Republic of China to retake "the mainland" and pinning its hopes on some dramatic political change there. Chen is not blindly waiting for the distant possibility of unification, China's democratization, or the baptism of a new Chinese leadership willing to implement democratic reforms.
Due to their traditional passive cross-strait policies, the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) can only chant the slogan "maintain the status quo," which of course means accepting China's missile threat and military intimidation as permissible.
China has been pointing missiles at Taiwan for over 50 years, Taipei City Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said, asking if that meant we must hold a referendum on the missiles every year. Why does Ma rush to the defense of a status quo that includes the possibility of 500 missiles raining down on Taiwan? Why do the KMT and the PFP believe that Taiwan should be held hostage by Beijing's tyranical despots?
Referendums are a manifestation of the collective will of the people. China will not remove its missiles because of a referendum in Taiwan. What the pan-blues really fear is giving up their power, and this is why they are trying to stop the referendum. They are so afraid of the people expressing their will that they view any expression of the people's will as a threat. It would appear they have inherited the reactionary genes of Chinese imperial politics. It is no wonder that the two parties echo China's stance on the referendum issue.
Half a century of hostility and diplomatic tussles between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait is a historical tragedy that resulted from the Chinese Civil War. Antagonism to China is not something chosen by the people of Taiwan. People on both sides should forget the KMT-Chinese Communist Party dispute and the hatred generated over the past 50 years. They should try to get to know each other and build a new relationship.
Neither "one China" nor "unification" is a persuasive policy. It is more practical for the two sides to interact with each other on the basis of equality and mutual benefit. We hope the Chinese leadership can come out of their "great unification" ideological cocoon and accept the reality of Taiwan's independent existence. The leaders of the two sides should seek a creative framework for bilateral relations.
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