US Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Monday that Taiwan is not a sovereign and independent country. The question is: Is Powell really clear on what he is talking about? If the status of Taiwan really is what Powell claims it to be, then his statement could be interpreted as meaning either that sovereignty over Taiwan remains undetermined, as stated in the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty, or that Taiwan comes under the sovereignty of China.
The question of whether this China is the Republic of China (ROC) or the People's Republic of China (PRC) will surely lead to further dispute. To those interpreting Powell's statement as meaning that Taiwan belongs to the PRC, we can only say that this goes further than any of the communiques signed by Washington and Beijing, and it is not consistent with the US' position.
A better explanation for Powell's comments in Beijing is that he was simply continuing the US' long-standing position of maintaining an ambiguous China policy. He was only clarifying the fact that the US does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taipei and that the US does not recognize the sovereignty of Taiwan. But nor does the US recognize Taiwan as being part of the PRC's territory. The US hopes that the Taiwan sovereignty issue will be resolved through negotiations between the governments on each side of the Taiwan Strait. The question of whether there will be peaceful unification will be decided by the outcome of such negotiations -- which must be approved by the Taiwanese people to take effect.
When US officials speak on the international stage about Taiwan's lack of national sovereignty, they clearly demonstrate how perilous Taiwan's situation is today -- even its closest friend finds itself unable to lend public support.
Only if Taiwanese show determination and are willing to defend themselves at any cost will they be able to avoid being swallowed up by China by one means or another. Beijing's most devious ploy is to get Taiwanese to take national defense lightly.
If Taiwan loses its military ability to oppose China's threats, what reason would Beijing have to sit down at the negotiating table to engage in substantive and meaningful talks with Taiwan? China would be able to threaten Taiwan militarily at any time -- and continue to do so until this nation surrenders. If this is a situation that the pan-blue camp finds intolerable, then they have no reason to oppose the arms-procurement budget that has turned the Legislative Yuan into a battleground.
Taiwan meets all the conditions for being a modern democratic nation, so Powell's comments about Taiwan not having sovereignty are a slap in the face. Unless the people of Taiwan are willing to face the same fate as the residents of Hong Kong and Macao, then there is only one thing they can do. They must convince the legislators they elected to represent them that Taiwan must equip itself with advanced weapons. The government must accelerate the development of a society sharing a strong sense of common identity. The people and the government must show their determined resistance to communist rule. This is a road that Taiwan has no choice but to follow.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS