When President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) last year said that he wanted the Taiwanese people to get accustomed to the democratic mechanism of a referendum, hordes of US think-tank figures fell over one another to condemn such "provocative" words. Just imagine: it might be used to change the "status quo!" Never mind that the present status quo derives from an anachronistic "one China" policy, itself the result of two Chinese regimes fighting a Civil War. Never mind also that a referendum is a widely-accepted mechanism for gauging people's views almost anywhere in the world.
Suddenly, in the view of these think-tank pundits, it became "provocative" to even talk about it, let alone apply it to major issues which determine the nation's future.
The storm of commentaries then increased when Chen dared to suggest he would steer the country toward a new constitution. According to the think-tank folks, this meant destruction and disaster would befall the island. Never mind that the present Constitution of the "Republic of China" was drafted by China's National Assembly in Nanking on Dec. 25, 1946, and promulgated by Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) regime on Jan. 1, 1947. Some two-thirds of its articles are outdated.
Here are some examples of how outdated it really is. The flag of the "Republic of China" is based on the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) flag, and was selected in China in the 1920s (Article 6). The territory of the "Republic of China" encompasses all of China, including "Outer Mongolia" and Tibet (Article 26). And the national anthem is a 1928 KMT song that has nothing to do with Taiwan.
It would therefore be practical and logical for the Taiwanese to devise a new constitution that meets the needs of the country today.
But the US Department of State and the White House have put their feet in concrete and their heads in the sand, telling Taiwan in no uncertain terms that there should be no new constitution, and certainly no changes to the Constitution which touch upon the issue of sovereignty. Only changes which would enhance governance would be acceptable.
To any reasonable person, such a position sounds ludicrous, but there are apparently people in Washington who maintain this position with a straight face. The reason for this, of course, is that they are playing to the "sensitivities" of Beijing.
So, let us see how "sensitive" Beijing is these days. On May 17, a few days before Chen's inauguration, China's Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Zhang Mingqing (張銘清) declared that China would "completely annihilate" any moves toward Taiwanese independence, no matter what the cost, even the loss of the summer Olympic Games in Beijing in 2008 -- a clear reference to military action if necessary. If Taiwan pursues independence, the statement warned, "the Chinese people will crush their schemes firmly and thoroughly at any cost."
To the casual observer, this looks like a rather provocative statement. However, the only thing State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli could say was that China's statement was "unhelpful."
To the casual observer it seems that there are two measures being applied: when Taiwan wants to make a baby-step in the direction of normality and acceptance in the international community, it is branded as "provocation." When big bully China throws its weight around, we have to tiptoe through the tulips. Isn't there something wrong with this picture?
By the way, Kenneth Lieberthal and other think-tank friends: you came down hard on Chen for making his referendum statements in November and December last year. But we still haven't heard your reaction to China's statements.
Provocative, perhaps. Or just unhelpful?
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique.
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