On March 13, 1938, Austrians were preparing to vote on whether Austria should be annexed by Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, they did not get to exercise their fundamental right due to the fact that Adolf Hitler's storm troopers had entered and occupied an independent, sovereign Austria the day before the vote.
Sixty-six years later in Taiwan, there is a national "defensive" referendum scheduled simultaneously with a direct presidential election on Saturday. The referendum issue has, however, become the most debated issue in the nation. Opposing the referendum, the pan-blue alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party(PFP) has essentially called for a boycott. Their rationale is that there is no need for a defensive referendum at a time when China's military threat is not imminent.
When will it be the right time for a "defensive" referendum? When Beijing is ready to invade or has already started the military attack as the pan-blue camp has suggested? Will that be way too late? Maybe we can come up with some sort of an answer by reviewing Germany's Anschluss, or annexation, of Austria before World War II.
When Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938, Austria had been a republic for only 18 years. Like today's Taiwan, where there are people who support unification with or annexation by the People's Republic of China, there were Austrians who were working for Nazi Germany's annexation of Austria. In 1935, an Austrian pro-Nazi gang murdered then-Austrian chancellor Englebert Dollfuss. In spite of the murder, the German-inspired coup attempt failed. At the time Italy was Austria's protector and Dollfuss, who had vowed to keep Austria independent of Germany, was pro-fascist and friendly with Benito Mussolini. When Dollfuss was killed, Italy sent troops to the border as a warning to Hitler to stay out of Austria. The Italian move effectively helped to kill the coup.
Kurt von Schuschnigg became Dollfuss' successor as Austria's chancellor. In February 1938, Hitler was ready to move against Austria. He presented von Schuschnigg with a list of demands, including that Austrian Nazis be left unrestricted and that top Austrian Nazis be included in Austria's government.
Germany would invade Austria if von Schuschnigg failed to act immediately.
Abandoned by Italy, which had became Germany's ally in 1937, and without hope of support from England or France, von Schuschnigg decided to give in to Hitler's demands. But he was still determined to keep Austria separate from Hitler's Germany.
On March 7, he contacted Mussolini, seeking opinion on a plebiscite. Mussolini warned that it would be a mistake to do so.
But von Schuschnigg ignored the warning and on March 9 called a national vote for March 13 to resolve the question of Anschluss once and for all.
On March 12, German troops, accompanied by Hitler himself, entered Austria, which quickly became and remained a German federal state until its liberation by the Allied Forces in 1945.
Hitler naturally would not allow Austrians to decide if they wanted Austria to be part of the Third Reich. It is also understandable that, being Hitler's ally after 1937, Mussolini discouraged Schuschnigg from holding a plebiscite. As for the rest of the major powers, the US had opted for diplomatic isolation after World War I, and Britain had chosen to appease Hitler while France was incapable of unilateral military action. Nazi Germany consequently had its way in the annexation of Austria.
Is history repeating itself in the case of Taiwan? Beijing has made it abundantly clear that China is determined to annex Taiwan. It is opposed to Taiwan's having a referendum of any sort and has strived to pressure the international community to oppose Taiwan's referendum plan. Yielding to China's diplomatic pressure and economic inducements, many countries, including the US, Japan and France, have made it known that they do not support Taiwan's referendum. For their short-term interest, these countries have buckled under Chinese pressure. It is, however, utterly impossible to imagine that Taiwan's pan-blue camp would call for a boycott of a defensive referendum designed to strengthen Taiwan's defenses against China's missile threat.
So, when will it be the right time to call for a defensive referendum in Taiwan if not when Beijing already has nearly 500 missiles targeting the nation? The planning of Saturday's referendum in Taiwan has taken close to three months, if not more. Is it possible for Taiwan to have a defensive referendum when Beijing is ready to invade Taiwan? History has shown that it was far too late for Austria to have a national plebiscite as Hitler massed troops along the Austrian border to march on Vienna.
On April 10, 1938, in order to establish his legitimacy over Austria, Hitler held his own plebiscite, and 99.7 percent of Austrians who voted were allegedly in favor of the Anschluss. It was of course an outcome secured under coercion. In addition, the majority of Austrians most likely believed that ties with Germany might promise economic revitalization for an economically depressed Austria. The Austrians appear to have thought that Austria would retain a considerable degree of separateness and only be absorbed gradually by Nazi Germany. The Austrians, however, turned out to be wrong, just as the people of Hong Kong are now realizing that they do not have much say as to how much autonomy and democracy Hong Kong will be allowed to have under Beijing's so-called "one country, two systems" framework.
On Feb. 28 over 2 million Taiwanese, or one in 10 people in Taiwan, participated in the historic Hand-in-Hand Rally to show their support for Taiwan and peace. That spectacular rally has made the world aware of the Taiwanese people's determination not to be part of the PRC. They must have their ultimate right of officially expressing their decision as to what kind of relations Taiwan is to have with China. If the time should come that a peaceful unification with or annexation by the PRC, for instance, is to be decided, the people of Taiwan should be the ones to have the final say. This, after all, is the 21st century, the century of human rights and popular democracy.
People of the democratic world ought to support the right of the Taiwanese to have a defensive referendum. However, it is sad to learn that today's Germany, under Beijing's pressure, has been urging Taiwan to forget about the referendum. Have the German leaders forgot that it was Germany that denied Austrians the right to a plebiscite and forcefully annexed Austria in 1938?
Saturday's referendum will establish that fundamental right of the people and a precedent. Even under Beijing's threat, freedom-loving Taiwanese have no reason not to participate in the referendum vote. As for the political leaders who have called for voters to boycott the referendum, they are either ignorant of historical facts or willfully irresponsible.
Chen Ching-chih is professor emeritus of history at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville and a research fellow with the Los Angeles-based Institute for Taiwanese Studies.
Taiwan’s victory in the World Baseball Softball Confederation Premier12 championship is an historic achievement. Yet once again this achievement is marred by the indignity of the imposed moniker “Chinese Taipei.” The absurdity is compounded by the fact that none of the players are even from Taipei, and some, such as Paiwan catcher Giljegiljaw Kungkuan, are not even ethnically Chinese. The issue garnered attention around the Paris Olympics, yet fell off the agenda as Olympic memories retreated. “Chinese Taipei” persists, and the baseball championship serves as a reminder that fighting “Chinese Taipei” must be a continuous campaign, not merely resurfacing around international
This month, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is to implement a major policy change by eliminating the suspension-and-resumption mechanism for Taiwanese residing abroad. With more than 210,000 Taiwanese living overseas — many with greater financial means than those in Taiwan — this reform, catalyzed by a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling, underscores the importance of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility in one of the world’s most admired public healthcare systems. Beyond legal obligations, expatriates have a compelling moral duty to contribute, recognizing their stake in a system that embodies the principle of health as a human right. The ruling declared the prior
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) appears to be encountering some culture shock and safety issues at its new fab in Arizona. On Nov. 7, Arizona state authorities cited TSMC for worker safety violations, fining the company US$16,131, after a man died in May. The Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health released its six-month investigation into the fatality and cited TSMC for failing to keep the workplace free from hazards likely to cause death or serious harm. At about the same time, the chip giant was also sued for alleged discriminatory hiring practices favoring Asians, prompting a flurry of debate on whether TSMC’s
US president-elect Donald Trump is inheriting from President Joe Biden a challenging situation for American policy in the Indo-Pacific region, with an expansionist China on the march and threatening to incorporate Taiwan, by force if necessary. US policy choices have become increasingly difficult, in part because Biden’s policy of engagement with China, including investing in personal diplomacy with President Xi Jinping (習近平), has not only yielded little but also allowed the Chinese military to gain a stronger footing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. In Xi’s Nov. 16 Lima meeting with a diminished Biden, the Chinese strongman signaled little
RSS