President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) speech on Lunar New Year's Day has become a point of concern for the US, prompting the US State Department to issue a series of statements. However, a closer examination of Chen's words fail to reveal any groundbreaking departure from the status quo -- at least nothing substantive enough to invite the level of surprise that the US government has demonstrated.
The so-called "changes" proposed in Chen's address were at most the removal of some superficial and symbolic mechanisms left over from the days of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rule. This is the case with his proposal to abolish the National Unification Council and unification guidelines -- both outdated tokens that exist solely as stumps to prop up the farcical dream that "unification" was the sacred destiny of Taiwan. One cannot help but wonder why these props should be maintained when most of the lead actors don't believe in them anymore -- at least not if they want any say in the future of Taiwan.
The truth of the matter is that the National Unification Council has not been convened once since 1999. It serves absolutely no function and a pan-blue controlled legislature slashed the council's annual budget to the ridiculously low amount of NT$1,000 (US$31). If anyone in Taiwan genuinely wishes for unification then it would have to be members of the pan-blue camp. However, not even they felt that it made sense to provide the council with more than a NT$1,000 bill each year.
The existence of the National Unification Council and unification guidelines is simply a mockery of democratic principles. It should be left to the people of Taiwan to determine the future of the country, and only the Taiwanese people can decide whether there should be unification with China. The existence of the National Unification Council and unification guidelines takes unification as a given, something that is at odds with democratic progress and development.
As for Chen talking about wanting to join the UN using the name "Taiwan" rather than the Republic of China (ROC), this is hardly an earth-shattering revelation either. It is no secret that Taiwan is unlikely to be admitted into the UN, no matter what name it uses. After all, China not only is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, but it also wields strong influence over almost all UN members, most of which hold formal diplomatic relations with it and acknowledge the "one China" principle. In choosing between "ROC" and "Taiwan," it is a toss up as to which is more offensive to China, since the former claims sovereignty over China's territory and the latter conflicts with the "one China" principle. Neither is going to be acceptable, so Taiwan might as well pick one that it prefers and which also happens to faithfully reflect the political reality of an independent sovereignty.
And as for the talk about holding a referendum on a new constitution, Chen has cited this as one of his major political platforms for quite some time now. It comes as no surprise.
As Chen heads toward the end of his second term, the US is worried that he may make a major move toward independence, since he now does not have to worry about re-election. However, popular will still determines the future of Taiwan, not any one man. Chen may not need to worry about re-election, but the ruling Democratic Progressive Party does.
The real question is: Do Taiwanese crave unification? The answer is a blindingly obvious "no."
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS