As a result of the meeting between President Chen Shui-bian (
Everyone ought to still remember that during the campaigns for presidential and legislative elections last year, President Chen loudly called for referendums, rectification of the names of Taiwan businesses and government offices abroad and the adoption of a new constitution -- triggering much international concern as a result. Those voters who supported him knew perfectly well that such campaign promises cannot necessarily be implemented immediately. However, at least they believed in Chen's determination to uphold Taiwan's sovereignty and security. In a country where Taiwan consciousness heightens by the days, many so-called moderate voters naturally cast their votes for Chen and DPP legislators.
Unfortunately, after Chen's successful re-election, and especially after his appointment of Frank Hsieh as the new premier, those campaign platforms were one by one labeled "controversial" and then swept under the rug. At the time, most people did no more than criticize Premier Hsieh for deferring discussions of issues such as name rectification and the adoption of a new constitution. Now people finally realize that these changes were closely linked with President Chen. Both Chen and Soong are happy with the ten-point consensus reached during their meeting. However, those people who support nativization are deeply disappointed.
Among the ten points, those related to the ROC Constitution and the commitment to not touch upon sovereignty and territorial issues in constitutional and political reforms have essentially sentenced Taiwan to death. Taiwan will continue to live under the shadow of the ROC Constitution, which was imposed by an alien regime. What a sad story for Taiwan's democracy. As Premier Hsieh once indicated, the ROC Constitution recognizes "one China." So long as Taiwan lives under this "one China" constitution, Taiwan remains vulnerable to to the People's Republic of China's "one China" principle. This also gives China even more justification for drafting its anti-secession law. Bluntly put, the conclusion reached between Chen and Soong will only make Taiwan's survival in the international community even more difficult.
Pushing for cross-strait economic exchanges and direct cargo links -- or even direct passenger links based on the charter flights during the Lunar New Year -- will jeopardize Taiwan's survival. In the past four years, Taiwan has eased restrictions on investment in China, intensifying the speed of the flow of capital and technology to China and giving rise to serious unemployment and other industrial problems. United Microelectronics Corp's (
Ironically, the ten-point consensus went on to say that any change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait will require the consensus of the 23 million people of Taiwan. However, the points regarding the ROC Constitution have already ordered euthanasia for Taiwan's sovereignty, while those regarding cross-strait trade are euthanasia for Taiwan's economy. Aren't these all changes to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait? Have Chen and Soong asked for the consent of the 23 million people of Taiwan? In particular, the president did not even bother to check with the voters who elected him, let alone the 23 million people of Taiwan. How is this different from conning the voters? The level of popular support for the ten-point consensus will be reflected in future elections.
After the ten-point consensus was released, the PFP could barely hold back their smirks. Some PFP lawmakers said the ten-point consensus incorporates all the ideals of pan-blue voters. Other PFP lawmakers said that all ten points reflect genuine and pure pan-blue ideals. Soong even explicitly pointed out that Taiwan independence is not an option. In other words, the ten-point consensus signified President Chen's surrender to the pan-blue camp and to China. Chen, who was elected by a majority of the people, has become the executor of the campaign platforms of his defeated election opponents. This is rarely seen in a democracy. No wonder everyone who support nativization feels enraged and is unable to understand Chen's betrayal of his campaign platforms.
The ten-point consensus also raised the issue of easing ethnic rivalry and promoting ethnic harmony. This, of course, is laughable. Over the years, through marriages and other personal and business relationships across ethnic groups, so-called ethnic tension has long ceased to be a real issue. Ethnic frictions within society are not an issue at all. The so-called ethnic or racial problems nowadays are generated by politicians in order to further their own interests in elections or power struggles. In terms of this issue, both Chen and Soong have much self-examination to do.
In a nutshell, with the ten-point consensus, there seems to be no need for China to draft the "anti-secession law" anymore. The consensus between Chen and Soong is the equivalent of Taiwan's own version of the "anti-secession law." Now that President Chen has destroyed Taiwan's sovereignty, why should China bother to dirty its own hands? Countries such as Japan and the US have taken a series of moves in recent days to caution China against playing with the fire by enacting its "anti-secession law." However, the leader of this country has willingly accepted the curse of the "one China" constitution just because he needs a legislative majority and in order to facilitate the passage of bills.
According to the ten-point consensus, mutual peace is the supreme guiding principle in this phase of the cross-strait relationship. Peace is of course everyone's hope. However, in order to pursue peace, embracing the "one China" constitution and freezing Taiwan's sovereignty is extremely problematic. As pointed out by a declaration of the Taiwan Presbyterian Church, "inter-party negotiation and cooperation must be preconditioned on the independence of Taiwan's sovereignty" and Taiwan should draft a "Taiwan and China Relations Act." Therefore, the ten-point consensus is indeed very disappointing.
We would like to make a public appeal, as the Presbyterian Church had already done: As the leader of Taiwan -- whose sovereignty awaits reinforcement -- your inevitable fate is to face challenges and difficulties of all kinds. Nevertheless, President Chen, you should be strong and persevere in order to pass the test. Do not seek simply to peacefully complete your term.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS