Taiwan is in trouble with the US, whose support is absolutely essential to the survival of the nation.
The first sign of trouble came last December when US President George W. Bush, after meeting with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
In a recent congressional hearing, US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly was even more blunt, warning that Taiwan risked losing US support if Chen changed the status quo through amending the Constitution. In Taiwan, David Keegan, deputy director of the American Institute in Taiwan, called on A-bian (
Is Washington conspiring with Beijing to force Taiwan into compliance with the "one China" formula in the name of preserving the "status quo?" Perhaps not. But one thing is certain: China has succeeded in weakening the US' resolve to protect Taiwan by taking advantage of the US' preoccupation with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the fight against international terrorism. The US needs China's assistance in reigning in North Korea's nuclear ambitions. The US must also remain mindful of its booming trade with and investment in China, on which US consumers and corporations heavily depend. Those factors are reason enough for the Bush administration to want to accommodate China on Taiwan.
How can the A-bian administration keep Taiwan from one day finding itself with no choice but to begin negotiating with Beijing on the basis of "one China" or a variation of it?
A-bian should hold a referendum as soon as possible and ask his people a simple and straightforward question: Do you favor the unification of Taiwan with China?
Such a referendum should proceed with or without the US' support. In fact, the US has no reason to object to it, because it is not designed to change the status quo. On the contrary, if a large majority of Taiwanese should reject unification, as is expected, the referendum would reinforce the status quo. While China uses the status quo to prevent Taiwan from drifting toward independence, Taiwan can use the same status quo to dissuade China from using force. Additionally, a resounding vote against unification would send a powerful message to the world that unification is not an option for Taiwanese people.
Such a referendum would provide A-bian with a strong mandate to undertake the constitutional overhaul he has promised. The small margin by which he won re-election hardly constitutes a mandate for carrying out a revision of the fundamental law of the land.
The March 20 referendums failed because the two items on which the people were asked to vote (missile defense and negotiation with China) clearly fall within the domain of executive decisions.
This allowed the pan-blue camp to label the referendums an "election gambit." In contrast, voting for or against unification is a question of fundamental concern to all the people of Taiwan, regardless of their political inclinations or ethnic affiliations. If skillfully handled, the referendum could pave the way for ethnic harmony by providing people with political common ground.
Finally, by carrying out such a referendum, A-bian could help Taiwanese realize their century-old dream of self-determination.
In the past 110 years, decisions have been made on several occasions which affected the sovereignty of Taiwan: the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895), the Cairo Declaration (1943), the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951), the Shanghai Communique (1972) and the US' recognition of the People's Republic of China (1979). Not in a single instance were the Taiwanese people ever consulted.
Today, Taiwanese control their own government. It is up to the A-bian administration to give the people a chance to exercise their right of self-determination. Let them clearly say yes or no to unification.
For Taiwan to continue to survive as a free, democratic and prosperous society, it has to break the "one-China" spell cast by Beijing and subscribed to by Washington.
But before Taiwan can ask the US to change its stance, Taiwan must demonstrate that good reasons for change exist. An overwhelming vote against unification could be a first step toward a review of the US's "one China" policy.
Caveat: For such a referendum to be effective, 65 percent to 75 percent of eligible voters must vote against unification. To achieve this result, careful preparation and skillful communication with all political groups are essential. Enlisting the support of those working for the rectification of Taiwan's name -- a movement led by former president Lee Teng-hui (
Edward Chen is professor emeritus of history residing in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. E-mail: edchen@velocity.net
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