Amid international suspicion over the motive and timing of the March 20 referendum, President Chen Shui-bian (
For those who have questioned why Chen needs to pursue a defensive referendum regardless of the danger it might create, the portrayal of the president as an unpredictable and reckless politician is false. The idea is based on the assumption that the cross-strait relationship in the last four decades has rested upon ambiguities that have allowed both the PRC and Taiwan to interpret the same concept to their own individual satisfaction. Therefore, any unilateral attempt to break such an ambiguous definition of the cross-strait status quo would be considered rocking the boat.
Most people tend to overlook the fact that Taiwan's democracy is an irreversible trend and any attempts to appease Beijing should not be conducted at the cost of the nation's democratic consolidation. Taiwan has always been a valuable asset to the international community with its democracy, economic progress and intensive participation in the world affairs. Without touching upon the sensitive issues of independence or unification, Chen's suggested referendum aims to secure cross-strait peace by asking Beijing to reduce its military deployment and to restart negotiations on peace. Such an effort to institutionalize cross-strait dialogue should be supported by the world community.
Hence, the main international implication of the framework for cross-strait peace lies in its predictability, manageability and responsibility. To rebut the accusation that his referendum move and plan for a new constitution in 2006 may pave the way for a de jure independence, Chen has pledged that constitutional reform will be based on no change to Taiwan's status quo. Moreover, a framework for cross-strait interaction will enable both sides to engage in peaceful contacts in a more predictable and manageable way.
For example, Chen suggested the establishment of demilitarized zones including the removal of combat personnel, equipment and deployed missiles and the creation of a buffer zone to prevent military con-flicts. Those are constructive measures aimed at reducing miscalculations and misperceptions that might lead to military conflicts. Aren't these what the international community was anticipating? The proposal indeed displayed Chen's responsibility to handle cross-strait relations.
Most importantly, Taiwan will show self-restraint under such a framework. Since its aim is to peacefully deal with China without changing the status quo of Taiwan, the international community can monitor the process of cross-strait negotiation without worrying about any unexpected changes.
Referendums are a democratic tool. While some argue Taiwan is using referendums like a hammer to pound people, Chen's framework proposal demonstrates his determination to incorporate the referendum as a hammer to build a house -- a house where people from both sides of the Taiwan Strait can peacefully live next to each other and enjoy democratic progress and economic prosperity.
Whether or not Beijing will react to Taiwan's peace gesture in a positive way is unknown. Given how close the presidential race is, it would be natural for the Chinese leaders to ignore Chen's proposal. Bei-jing, however, will have to face the results of the referendum. If a majority of voters support the frame-work, both sides will have to shoulder the responsibility of international expectation for cross-strait peace.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS