Many people were worried that the 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally would worsen ethnic confrontation. However, the rally's mood is better described as having been joyful rather than hateful. But the rally can hardly be seen as one ethnic group's provocation of other groups. If there was any kind of threat, it was directed at the pan-blue camp by demonstrating the pan-green camp's ability to mobilize its supporters.
One group dedicated to the advancement of ethnic equality recognized the self-control demonstrated by both camps in the rally. Its spokesperson even called upon the two camps to co-host a rally next year. Unfortunately, neither camp has responded.
The rally was good for the pan-green's election campaign. Some people have questioned the pan-green's motive in organizing the rally. Their concerns are legitimate, and will make political parties act more prudently. A society needs people like them, who challenge political figures and political groups on behalf of society. After all, power is like a flood, and mismanagement of it will harm people.
But other than from a political perspective, how can we interpret the rally? Was it a result of mobilization? Was it a demonstration of hatred against China? Or a show of admiration for President Chen Shui-bian (
In view of the variety of participants and mood of the event, it does not seem to be support for a certain political party that pushed millions to take to the streets; neither was it hatred against China or other ethnic groups.
Although the event was aimed at China, the confidence and desire for self-determination shown in the rally were not manifestations of blind hostility toward China. Many people who took to the streets that day have family or friends working in China or own businesses connected to the Chinese economy. Even the stocks owned by some of the participants may depend quite heavily on the performance of the Chinese economy. However, their common sense told them that Taiwan's future is inseparable from China's development. Their wish to be treated with justice and dignity is a sensible appeal.
The rally participants are not fanatics for Taiwan's indepen-dence. They do not wish to ratchet up tensions and create conflicts in cross-strait relations, but rather they hope to serve as a force for maintaining peace.
Not only are the pan-blue and pan-green camps aware of this, but Beijing knows it as well. Zhang Nianchi (章念馳), chief advisor to the chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, recently pointed out that China has long neglected the influence of localization, democratization and diversification of Taiwanese society after the lifting of martial law. He said that Beijing has only focused on the homogeniety of the "one country" aspect of the "one country, two systems" policy, and has overlooked the differences allowed for under "two systems."
Zhang obviously noticed that the "one-China policy" has lost support in Taiwan. But he also pointed out that "as long as the `one-China' principle is safeguarded in the international community, Taiwan will never get its independence." He believed that as China is developing peacefully, the Taiwan issue needs to be handled similarly.
Zhang's point is reasonable and objective, despite its overtones of pan-Chinese national-ism. This is the primary difference between his desire for peace and the desires of the rally participants, who are primarily concerned about the nation's future. Yet what can be found from both of them is a foundation of reason and an aspiration for peace, economic development and cooperation.
Such sentiments can serve as the foundation upon which both sides communicate. There will definitely be conflict during the process, but the process does not entail a zero-sum game of winner and loser.
Although many Taiwanese can understand China's desire for peaceful economic development, unfortunately not many Chinese can objectively consider Taiwan's aspirations for peaceful autonomy. If more Chinese politicians could be like Zhang and think in such a sensible way, then more Chinese will be able to sympathize and understand Taiwan's pursuit for a peaceful autonomy.
Only then can the two societies build cross-strait peace and safeguard each other hand-in-hand.
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
Translated by Jennie Shih
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
This month’s news that Taiwan ranks as Asia’s happiest place according to this year’s World Happiness Report deserves both celebration and reflection. Moving up from 31st to 27th globally and surpassing Singapore as Asia’s happiness leader is gratifying, but the true significance lies deeper than these statistics. As a society at the crossroads of Eastern tradition and Western influence, Taiwan embodies a distinctive approach to happiness worth examining more closely. The report highlights Taiwan’s exceptional habit of sharing meals — 10.1 shared meals out of 14 weekly opportunities, ranking eighth globally. This practice is not merely about food, but represents something more
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
RSS