President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) recently told a Taichung gathering that he had decided to transform the nine-member cross-strait affairs task force into a "cross-strait peace development committee." This committee is intended to issue "cross-strait peace development guidelines" as the basis of implementing government policy to establish cross-strait consensus.
Chen emphasized that while Taiwan is facing Chinese military threats, a diplomatic siege and economic challenges, it could not afford to be divided, and that its people must have a clear concept of national identity and an awareness of potential crisis, and should not mistake an enemy state for one's own country.
The peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait is not only compatible with the interests of Taiwan and neighboring countries, but is also constructive for the entire international order.
Therefore not only has Taiwan long endeavored to protect the stability of the Taiwan Strait, but the international community has given a high priority to the situation here.
Over the past decade, with the end of the Cold-War era and also of the so-called "period of Communist rebellion" that rationalized martial law, the government has long regarded pushing for cross-strait peace as a standing policy.
Both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) governments and the current Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government have demonstrated sincerity in seeking cross-strait peace through action.
Yet these efforts seeking cross-strait peace have been consistently met with a cold shoulder by China. Chen's proposal for "cross-strait peace development guidelines" was no exception. This situation highlights the reality that the potential threat to cross-strait peace comes from China, not Taiwan.
It is very easy to appreciate this fact, since China has never ceased efforts to eradicate Taiwan's sovereignty and to change the sovereign status quo of Taiwan.
China continues to escalate its military threats with no intention to hide its military deployments in this regard. This is not to mention the economic unification propaganda efforts it has waged.
On the surface, China may have sugar-coated its poison, declaring that it will "peacefully unify" Taiwan under a policy of "one country, two systems." In reality, China has always adopted a two-handed policy of peace and war.
On the one hand, it puts on the act of seeking peaceful unification, while on the other hand actively prepares both militarily and economically.
US military officials have said during congressional hearings that the People's Liberation Army is determined to focus on preparing for military conflict in the Taiwan Strait. The quantity and quality of its short-range missiles targeting Taiwan have drastically escalated. Talk about so-called peaceful unification under "one country, two systems" is thus laughable.
Recognizing China's ambition, US warnings against China about using force against Taiwan have become more direct. Not long after the presidential election, the US announced the sale of long-range radar defense systems to Taiwan.
That the US is concerned about imbalanced military power between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait goes without saying. Taiwan hopes to seek peace, yet China is getting ready for use of force.
Under the circumstances, Taiwan has no choice but to continue to strengthen its defensive capability. This is a destiny we cannot escape. Regrettably, the unification camp has accused the government of engaging in an arms race against China, completely ignoring that Chinese military threats are offensive in nature, while our national defense is defensive.
The unification camp has also erroneously claimed that the obstacle to cross-strait peace is the government's refusal to accept the "one China" principle. They echoed the Beijing leadership in saying that if Taiwan accepts this principle and concedes that it is part of China, cross-strait tension will turn into peace.
They must seriously rethink such statements. Such an approach is not seeking cross-strait peace, but surrendering to Chinese threats. Once Taiwan surrenders to China, it can only helplessly sit back and watch. What kind of peace would that be?
The so-called "cross-strait peace" really is peace between two countries. Therefore this kind of peace must be based on reciprocity and equality, and not conditioned on sacrificing Taiwan's sovereignty.
Thus the principle of "unification under one country, two systems" is a complete fraud. It is invasion under the empty slogan of peace, and is more accurately depicted instead as "euthanasia of sovereignty."
So in the process of seeking cross-strait peace, the government must insist on equal footing in sovereignty between the two sides.
Taiwan should continue to seek cross-strait peace and to try to expand its international space simultaneously.
As a sovereign country, Taiwan is entitled to participate in international organizations and to establish formal diplomatic ties with other nations. China seeks to have all of Taiwan's allies sever diplomatic ties, blocking the nation's space for diplomacy.
Under these circumstances, some people actually say that to seek cross-strait peace, the government should not generate friction in the international community.
This is completely reversing cause and effect, as both the cross-strait relationship and international space are critical to Taiwan's future.
"Taiwanese unity, a secure cross-strait relationship, a stable society, and economic prosperity" is how Chen has summarized his policy goals since his re-election. The "cross-strait peace development guidelines" derive from this policy goal. Surely most people agree with the goal of cross-strait peace, and the international community would be more than happy to see it happen.
The government should refrain from wishful thinking and from unilaterally expressing goodwill at all costs, including sacrificing industries, the economy and job opportunities. It takes two to tango. Cross-strait peace is a goal that awaits hard work from both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
If China does not give up its proclaimed right to use force against Taiwan and the "one China" principle, peace will not be easily obtainable.
We believe if China does not reciprocate with basic goodwill, then instead of wasting time on this topic the government might as well put its focus on Taiwanese unity, social stability and economic prosperity, because these issues are not only within our control but are the most powerful bargaining chips in efforts to seek cross-strait peace.
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