Several days before President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) inauguration, China's Taiwan Affairs Office issued a statement on May 17, declaring the so-called "five nevers" and "seven visions," as well as offering to the Taiwan regime two roads from which to choose. "One is to stop while there is still time, ceasing all Taiwan independence and splittist activities, to acknowledge that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one China, and to promote the development of cross-strait relationship; the other is to continue down the path of wishfully attempting to split Taiwan from China, and ultimately heading for self-destruction by playing with fire." The statement openly threatened that "if those in power in Taiwan take the chance and dare to to make major moves for Taiwan independence, the Chinese people will spare no costs in crushing Taiwan independence plots with firm determination."
Last Monday, the same office called a press conference to officially respond to Chen's inauguration speech on May 20, largely reiterating the May 17 statement. It also criticized Chen for "going back on his words and lacking in credibility," as well as claiming that "the possibility of the outbreak of a war in the Taiwan Strait depends solely on the attitude of Chen Shui-bian." The press conference had become an attack on Chen.
In contrast with the panicked reactions of the nation's people to the May 17 statement, which was accompanied by major stock market declines, the May 24 statement failed to stir up much reaction, despite the fact that the pigheaded demeanor of the Taiwan Affairs Office remained the same and its spokesperson put on almost exactly the same act.
This seems to indicate that China has exhausted the tricks up in its sleeves with regard to Taiwan. Since China issued the May 17 statement to oppose Chen's plan to draft a new constitution through a referendum in 2006, and because Chen had spoken of constitutional reform rather than rewriting in his inauguration speech, China could have accepted the good will shown by Taiwan and sought to establish a cross-strait peace and stability mechanism through communication and negotiations.
Instead, the Chinese leadership remained trapped in its "one China" cage. As a result, these leaders could only respond to Taiwan's mainstream popular will with dogmatic replies and coercive language. This creates a situation in which Beijing utters harsh words without any response, causing even more resentment on the part of the Taiwanese.
China's policies -- from "blood-bathing Taiwan, liberating Taiwan" in the Mao Zedong (
Late in his life, Chiang Ching-kuo took a first step toward democratic reforms and nativization. Former president Lee Teng-hui (
The hope is to use Hong Kong as a role model of "one country, two systems" so as to eliminate Taiwanese resistance to unification. While the underlying concept of "one country, two systems" is at least less restrictive than the model of KMT-CCP negotiations, it nevertheless was built on a denial of Taiwan's sovereignty and on an assumption that China is the principal and Taiwan is the vassal.
Since the Lee Teng-hui era, Taiwan underwent six amendments to its constitution, the end of martial law and the introduction of popular legislative, mayoral and presidential elections. Nativized consciousness and and a democratic form of government in Taiwan have become deeply rooted. The people have taken power in Taiwan, and naturally they refuse subjugation under another alien regime. Therefore, "one country, two systems" has no appeal in Taiwan nor could it ever be accepted by them.
Four years ago, Chen was elected in Taiwan's first-ever change of ruling party, and for the first time a nativized political party took power. Without doubt, Taiwan is an independent and sovereign country. However, China still remained adamant about using "one country, two systems" and Jiang's eight points as the core of its policy toward Taiwan. In order to buy time, it has refused to engage in exchanges and negotiations with the Chen government. China seemed to prefer to wait until a unification camp gains power again. What China must face now is not just government leaders such as Chen, but also Taiwan's people as a whole.
Yet in both recent speeches, China spoke only of "those in power in Taiwan," making no mention whatsoever of the people of Taiwan. Since the people of Taiwan aren't addressed by the Chinese leadership, Beijing obviously does not have any concept what democracy is. Under the circumstances, how can there be any positive interactions between the two sides? Talk of co-existence and co-prosperity for the two sides is therefore empty and delusional.
China's Taiwan policy will fail as long as it cannot understand democracy and the popular will. This policy is built on hysterical nationalism and imperial Chinese ideology. Four years ago, the "five noes" proposed in Chen's inauguration speech were an expression of goodwill. However, what he promised was beyond his presidential powers.
Four years later, Chen's suggestion that constitutional reforms be made without touching on the issues of sovereignty, territory, unification and independence was again a sign of goodwill, rather than what he rightfully can do as president. Unfortunately, China failed to make good use of Chen's goodwill and continued to utter coercive threats, missing two golden opportunities for cross-strait peace.
Perhaps we should turn the tables on China and tell them to "Stop while there is still time" and show goodwill for peace in the Taiwan Strait."
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
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
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS