At first we were tempted to write off those standing against the government's representatives in the referendum debates as the shameless has-beens and opportunists that most of them are. But then we should probably be glad someone is going to do this. After all, the pan-blue camp never tells the truth about its opposition to the referendum, namely that it is motivated by deference to Beijing's wishes. Rather it seeks to portray the referendum as illegal, which it quite obviously is not, or else the pan-blues would have mounted a legal challenge to it already; or simply pointless, asking questions about which there could be no disagreement. It's true that the questions are a little bland, though the fault for that lies with Washington, where the questions were all but drafted, rather than the government here. But if the pan-blue criticism of the seriousness of the questions is to be refuted, the best way to achieve that is to see a lively debate about them.
It is hard to predict what the antis are going to say in the debate, especially given that we have no final list of who they will be. But last Wednesday one would-be debater, Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) of the Chinese Speech and Debate Association, drew attention to the fact that there were a number of different positions that could be taken apart from either not voting at all or voting yes. Good, though we disagree with the positions that Lo himself has taken.
The two questions are, as you are probably weary of hearing, whether Taiwan should increase spending on anti-missile defense and whether Taiwan should open some kind of negotiations with China.
Actually there are respectable "anti" positions on these questions, takers of which should run no risk of being labelled a stooge of China -- the common fear of the antis.
For example, do the kind of anti-missile defenses that Taiwan might buy actually work? The only really mature system is the Patriot PAC-3 and it has yet to be shown that this is effective. Remember how the first Patriots were praised during Gulf War I by the US Department of Defense, only for us to find out later on that they were utterly useless and probably never downed a single missile?
Then again, there is an old military maxim that the best means of defense is offence. We have seen a number of senior officers, both serving and retired, question Taiwan's devotion to missile defense against China's missiles, when a far more effective deterrent might be to create missiles of our own. Those who deplore any resulting arms race should take note that China can only threaten Taiwan because it runs no risk of retaliation. Up the risk factor to China and you might even bring it to the negotiating table.
Which brings us to the second question. Should Taiwan talk to China? What for? Because its businessmen have invested there? This has been going on for 15 years without discussions and it doesn't seem to have been a handicap, looking at the investment figures. Obviously there is nothing wrong with Taiwan and China sitting down together if each is prepared to respect the other and negotiate in good faith. Experience suggest that this is impossible with the communists. They will not respect Taiwan. Why Taiwan should offer goodwill in order to be ritually humiliated is a question that the "yes" voters should try to answer. What does that Taiwanese ultranationalist Lee Teng-hui (
So there are arguments against and it would be a good thing for the referendum process to hear them. But whatever the result of the referendum, as we said last week, the most important thing is to have it. It is, as we said before but cannot say too often, the turnout alone that matters.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS