In the face of China's growing military threat, President Chen Shui-bian (
The first is to ensure that "the democracy of Taiwan -- a core member of the world's community of democracies -- is not threatened or destroyed by China through non-peaceful means." The second is to "join with the other members of the global `community of democracies' in assisting non-democratic nations, such as China, to develop democracy." The third is "to explore ways to normalize relations and resume dialogue with China under a peace and stability framework for cross-strait interaction, thereby promoting stability and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region."
This "new balance" is a framework being promoted by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government, and it is based on the twin tenets of Taiwanese democracy and cross-strait peace. In the past, the cross-strait issue has been confined to the unification-independence debate.
During the rule of Chiang kai-shek (
In the Chiang era, the cross-strait issue was viewed as an internal matter for China, but under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) it evolved into what he called "special state-to-state" relations. From this point on, the power struggle between the KMT and the CCP morphed into something altogether different -- from a battle for who would rule all of China, to a fight over Taiwan's sovereignty.
The fundamental nature of China-Taiwan relations has now changed. China should now treat Taiwan as an independent nation of equal status. This is the only way it can comprehensively resolve the ongoing conflict and establish a structure for good relations.
Unfortunately, Chinese leaders are still stuck in outmoded ideas of a power struggle with Taiwan. China has proposed numerous absurd policies under the "one China" paradigm in their efforts to appeal to the Taiwanese people. At the same time, Beijing is expanding its military and enhancing its deployments in an effort to force Taiwan's submission through the threat of attack.
Most worrying is that the international community -- whether because of a misunderstanding of history or because they have succumbed to Chinese pressure -- is unable to see the real situation in the Taiwan Strait, and continues to see the cross-strait issue as a power struggle. As a result, Taiwan's ability to survive in the international community is undermined.
The concept of a new power balance in the Strait breaks through the "one China" lie by telling the international community that the reality of the situation is that there is one country on each side of the Strait. It also identifies Taiwan's sovereignty and independence with its democracy by highlighting the difference between a system of savage communism and a civilized liberal democracy, and stressing that the two countries have no jurisdiction over each other.
In other words, the conflict between China and Taiwan involve not only a struggle over sovereignty, but also a contradiction between communism and democracy. China's threat to Taiwan is a threat to all democratic countries. Moreover, China's missiles can already reach India, Russia, the entire US, Australia and New Zealand. This is proof that China's rise is not peaceful, but rather a serious threat to global stability.
We cannot deny the great imbalance in national power between Taiwan and China. Taiwan must side with democratic countries such as the US, Japan and the EU member states to be able to resist China's ambition to annex Taiwan.
When Chen proposed the concept of a new power balance, he linked Taiwanese democracy to cross-strait peace, and tied Taiwanese security to the development and stability of democratic countries around the world. This is praiseworthy. His goal in proposing this concept in the face of China's military threat was not only to defend Taiwan, but to become a pillar of strength for democratic states around the world who are also resisting communist totalitarianism.
Whether we look to history or international law, Taiwan's sovereignty and independence are undeniable facts. Given Taiwan's disadvantages, economic development and a more robust national defense remain the only ways to guarantee that our sovereignty will not be violated.
Translated by Perry Svensson and Ian Bartholomew
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