An interesting thing has come about. In 2000, Beijing announced in a white paper entitled One China Principle and the Taiwan Question that the Republic of China (ROC) had already been replaced by the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. Since, in Beijing's understanding, the ROC no longer exists, why would it choose to resort to force rather than allow Taiwan to "negate" the existence of the ROC?
Beijing considers the ROC to be a remnant of the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and thus the cause for "re-unification" with Taiwan is a sacred mission for all Chinese. Once Taiwan is "liberated," the ROC will be history.
Beijing's intention in enacting an "anti-secession" law is simply to cover up its inability to "liberate" and "re-unify" Taiwan. However, so long as Taiwan continues to retain the name "ROC," the old framework of the civil war between the CCP and the KMT remains in place.
Following the transition of power in 2000, Taiwan absolutely had an opportunity to reverse this historical process and distance itself further from China to resolve what China calls the continuation of the civil war. After the KMT's defeat in the presidential elections in 2000 and last year, the antagonistic situation between the KMT and the CCP no longer exists. What remains is this phoney name: the ROC. Therefore, the ultimate goal of Taiwan's democratization is very obvious.
To deliver a goodwill gesture to the People First Party (PFP), President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) announced in a summit with PFP leader James Soong (宋楚瑜) last week that the ROC is the common denominator for both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
Politically, the announcement recognized that the civil war between the KMT and the CCP has yet to end.
In addition, Chen did not say if he was forced into making this announcement because the opposition parties hold a legislative majority or because he was under pressure from the US. The moment the 10-point agreement reached between Chen and Soong was released, it provoked a backlash within both the green and blue camps. The agreement has shown how terrifying it is to have the "ROC" as a national title.
First, KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
What the Chen-Soong summit has generated is legitimacy for "re-unification" with China. I predict that more confrontation and polarization will occur if this trend facilitates reconciliation between the DPP and the PFP.
Nonetheless, the biggest threat is posed not by the pan-blue camp, but by Beijing. The details of China's proposed anti-secession law have yet to be released, nor have they been discussed. This has forced the DPP to return to the meaningless talk of civil war.
However, Beijing will not be satisfied with simply the continuation of the civil war between the KMT and the CCP. Rather, it would like to end the civil war. No wonder Beijing has arbitrarily and unilaterally confirmed that the "one China" principle is based on the 1992 consensus. Let us mull over chairman Mao Zedong's (毛澤東) sarcastic logic: if peace is our sole end, we can achieve that simple peace at any time by surrendering ourselves.
Is the 10-point agreement the beginning of reconciliation or upheaval? Let us wait and see.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
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