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 Some two-thirds of its articles are outdated.
Here are some examples of how outdated it really is.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.
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