Setting the direction of President Chen Shui-bian's
(
First, we need to ask if the people in Taiwan are satisfied. Judging by the election results,
it is apparent that over half of Taiwan's electorate support and feel elated about Chen's stand on several issues he grappled with during the election campaign: His insistence on "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait; his determination to
underscore Taiwan's sovereignty; and his vision to draft a new constitution by 2006 and to put
it to a referendum in 2008.
Nonetheless, in Chen's inauguration speech, "one country on each side" disappeared and the spotlight on Taiwan's sovereignty receded. Even more seriously, the promised new constitution and referendum have been watered down to "constitutional re-engineering." Chen even made it clear that constitutional changes will not touch upon the key issues the nation's name, its
territory or its sovereignty.
Such remarks are not only a breach of campaign promises,
it is also a backing away from Chen's call for a new constitution through a national referendum and the issues of localization and democratization.
Given Taiwan's domestic
and international situation, some have argued that we need to be realistic rather than harping on about our ideals. Chen himself also explained that the project
of creating a new constitution by referendum has been abandoned since a public consensus on this issue has not been reached.
But what is the majority's view of the reality Taiwan faces? Since Taiwan's first ever direct presidential election, the approval rate of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has climbed by 29 percent. It is the DPP's persistence in fighting for Taiwan's sovereignty that has won people's hearts. The approval rate -- increasing by 3.6 percent annually -- is indicative of the aspirations of Taiwan's majority and their approval of Chen's plans.
Since Chen won the election by a narrow margin, accusations of ethnic divisions have been flying around. Chen probably made concessions in the interest of ethnic harmony. But, in fact, there has never been a problem
of ethnic division. Even if there were, it would only have been the issue of different values between the Taiwanese, who constitute 85 percent of the island's population, and the Mainlanders who account for 15 percent. In any case, a neck-and-neck election result is not an unfamiliar scene in democratic countries. US President George W. Bush's lead over Al Gore in the US' 2000 presidential election was even smaller than Chen's winning margin. As a result, the American people were divided on ideological grounds. Nevertheless, when Bush took office, he did not make any concessions to this fact. Instead, he maintained the principles and ideals on which he has based his election campaign: Large tax cuts, cutting back on social services, beefing up the US' national defense, aggressive foreign policies, and so forth. Apparently, Bush learned the lesson from his father (former US President Bush) -- never turn your back on campaign promises after getting elected.
In contrast, Chen's inauguration speech not only disappointed the pro-green camp supporters who voted for him, but is unlikely to have pleased the supporters
of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP), either. As for Chen's address, the KMT and PFP said they need to observe Chen's deeds rather than his words. Given the difficult situation Taiwan faces today, strategy is doubtlessly all-important in political maneuvering. However, the strategies must not sacrifice a party's principles. Strategies serve principles; principles should not be discarded
to facilitate strategy. It is of
paramount importance that any country's political leader should first gratify their own people. Even though other countries are satisfied, leaders will still lose
the electorate's trust and support
if they fail to satisfy their own
people.
As for China, the inaugural speech was obviously unsatisfactory. In the opinion of Beijing academics and in a statement
by China's Taiwan Affairs Office,
the tone of reproach remains
unchanged; and they continue to criticize Chen administration and interpret Chen's goodwill as deceitful. Even more remarkably, some Beijing academics attributed Chen's softer tone in his speech to China's saber-rattling statement on May 17.
Why is Beijing unwilling
to respond with goodwill? The nature of its authoritarian regime answers the question. An autocrat recognizes no logic, truth
or common sense. For a dictator, the only thing that matters is clout. If you don't speak through exercising power, your goodwill would only be taken as a sign of weakness, regardless of how it
is expressed. Give an inch and China will take a mile.
Some people worry that if we insist on principles, China will be prompted to use force against Taiwan. In fact, China does not enjoy domestic and diplomatic conditions that will allow an invasion of Taiwan, and in any case Taiwan's attitude will not directly affect China's deliberations over military action.
The reasons that China has not invaded Taiwan are the US'
possible intervention and China's own myriad social problems.
When a country makes stability a priority over any other concern, it is easy to see
how unstable that society will become. It is more important
to China's Communist Party to
remain in power than acquiring Taiwan. Its battle cry against Taiwan is to achieve two things: To deter Taiwanese from making their own choices and to fuel nationalist sentiment in China to maintain the party's rule. Their fundamental concern is to hold on to power. This is why the
US' experts say that Beijing's great thunder brought little rain. According to the US experts, China does not have many cards to play in cross-strait relations. That said, why can't Taiwan's political leaders see this?
Not surprisingly, the US was pleased with Chen's inauguration speech. However, Washington was content not because the speech serves Taiwan' interests. Rather, Washington liked it because it also meets the US' interests. The US government, no matter which party is in power, has always put its own interests first. But do the leaders in Taiwan give top priority to Taiwan's own interests when there is a conflict of interests between Taiwan and the US?
Prior to the election, Chen said that "Taiwan is not a province
of China nor a state in any other country." He insisted that Taiwan was a sovereign state that puts its own interests first. As a significant blueprint of future policies, the inauguration speech cannot make the US' gratification its foremost concern.
Some may also argue that, under China's glare, an unstable US-Taiwan relationship will only damage Taiwan's security. But the example of Israel shows a different reality. Not unlike Taiwan, Israel is the US' ally and relies heavily on the US for its survival in the Middle East.
But Israel puts its own interests first when its interests clash with the US, and it is not afraid of upsetting the Americans. In 1981, for instance, Israel was determined to bomb a nuclear power plant under construction in Iraq.
Despite the US' vehement opposition, Israel still took action to serve its own national interests. In hindsight, Israel's move not only benefited itself but also other Western countries, who now appreciate Israel's courage.
When Bush warned Taiwan to back down in the presence of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
To protect its strategic advantages in the Middle East, the US must support Israel. The same logic applies to Taiwan's situation. Because the US cannot afford to abandon the strategic position Taiwan has in the Taiwan Strait and the Western Pacific, the US will not abandon Taiwan even if the nation insists on prioritizing its own national interests and risks ruffling the US' feathers. Like Israel, the existence and security of Taiwan has also become part of the US' national interest. If China were to invade, its navy would take the coveted Hualien harbor. By doing this, its navy would go outside of the Taiwan Strait and enter the Western Pacific, challenging the US' military superiority in the Asia-Pacific Region. In short, the US will never allow China to invade Taiwan.
Therefore, Taiwan should be bold when necessary. Like the Israelis, the Taiwanese people should fight for their own national interests.
After 400 years of exile in Egypt, the Israelis journeyed in the wilderness for 40 years before reaching the promised land. Taiwan has also endured a 400-year history of being colonized. From the grassroots cry for freedom and independence in the 1970s, through former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) 12-year stint in office during which he pushed for democratization and localization, and up to what will be Chen's eight years in government, almost 40 years have elapsed.
Only if the Taiwanese people learn the lesson from Israel of "not flinching" and Taiwan's leaders undertake their mission with courage, will Taiwan walk from underneath China's shadow and grow into a new, independent country.
Cao Changching is a writer based in the US.
TRANSLATED BY WANG HSIAO-WEN
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS