Earth to Beijing: Get a life! The boys in Beijing just don't get it. During many discussions relating to Taiwan and China, I have heard Chinese insist that it is only natural for a mother to want to have a child return to her bosom. This homely image is usually shattered whenever it is suggested that the wayward child would prefer to remain outside the fold. Despite their professed love for their brothers in Taiwan, they show a remarkable willingness to bomb them into oblivion if they do not reciprocate.
This pairing of mother's love with "nuke-'em-til-they-glow" threats is twisted, to say the least. It recalls the logic (?) expressed by the US military during the Vietnam conflict that it might be necessary to destroy a village to save it. As it is, China has at least 500 missiles armed and aimed at Taiwan. If tensions are rising on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, it is not hard to see where the source lies. Chinese leaders continue to make substantial increases in military spending while confirming that reunification is their top priority and the core issue for their relations with the US. For its part, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is actively improving its capabilities for a full military invasion of Taiwan. The aim of its training is to perfect a multi-pronged blitzkrieg to secure a foothold to pre-empt US reaction.
To this end, the PLA conducts massive joint-force exercises that simulate an invasion of Taiwan from China's southeastern coast.
As in other independent countries, threats from a bellicose and bullying neighbor encourage the threatened people to rally around those they believe will protect their interests. It is hard for Beijing to make the case that bombing Taiwan into submission serves the best interest of Taiwan's inhabitants.
Threats of aggression have reinforced the development of a distinctive Taiwanese identity. A recent response to China's saber rattling was the largest demonstration in Taiwan's history when over a million people joined hands to create a human chain traversing the entire length of the country.
Public-opinion surveys indicate that Taiwanese identity has grown over the past decade with over 40 percent of inhabitants viewing themselves as Taiwanese only. Meanwhile, a slightly larger percentage sees their identity as both Taiwanese and Chinese. In all events, Beijing depends upon fabricated logic and imaginary historical claims to support its efforts to exclude Taiwan from various international organizations. Never mind the nationalistic assertions, historical facts offer little support for Beijing's claims for its suzerainty over Taiwan. Looking back into the distant past of the island of Formosa, it is well known that it was originally inhabited by Aboriginal peoples.
Eventually Portuguese sailors arrived in and around the country before significant Chinese settlements appeared there.
Then, in 1624, the Dutch arrived and were soon followed by the Spanish.
China's political influence on Taiwan began in 1661 after officials linked to the Ming dynasty displaced the Dutch. In 1683, the Qing took over Taiwan but ceded it to Japan in 1895. After spending nearly 50 years under Japanese control, Taiwan became the refuge of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chiang Kai-shek (
It is chimerical that a country founded upon a Marxist-Leninist ideology would be willing to depend upon sovereignty claims based upon imperial conquest and unequal treaties.
After all, demands for assumption of political control over Hong Kong and Macau were based upon repudiating just these conditions.
Forget about the rhetoric. It is clear that the leadership in Beijing cares nothing about multi-party, pluralistic democracy, nor is it sensitive to the aspirations of a free people. This is evident in dismissive remarks about the lack of "patriotism" among Hong Kong's democrats. They are dismissed as incompetent because they insist upon self-determination for Hong Kong residents instead of promoting the interests of a distant autocratic regime.
Recently, the Chinese Communist Party issued histrionic complaints that a referendum for a new constitution for Taiwan would violate international law. Concerning proposed changes in Taiwan's Constitution, it can only be an improvement.
The existing document was formulated in Nanjing in 1947 by Chiang's KMT to secure a one-party dictatorship.
Revisions are needed to support the vibrant, multiparty democracy that now operates in Taiwan.
Either as an act of arrogance and hypocrisy or willful deception, lectures on legal niceties from dictatorial single-party regimes hardly merit consideration.
If Beijing is so concerned about due process, it should welcome a referendum to determine whether people in Taiwan wish to reunite with China under the current regime.
As it is, there is no explicit universal acceptance of China's sovereignty over Taiwan. China's threat to use force against Taiwan has no more basis in international law than would military aggression against Japan or India.
Christopher Lingle is professor of economics at Georgetown University.
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