In his Lunar New Year address, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) pointed out that he would seriously consider the feasibility of abolishing the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines. Clearly, on the heels of his New Year speech, Chen has once again told Taiwanese that they should pursue their own direction and refuse to be oppressed by China on the political and economic fronts. I genuinely hope that Taiwanese can give Chen the confidence to pursue such a goal and urge him not to falter in the face of adversity.
However, Chinese Nationalist Party Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) labeled Chen's remarks a "breach of trust," threatening that "Chen is going to pay a high price for his behavior" as if he was speaking on behalf of Beijing.
Is Chen's message actually a breach of trust? Certainly not. If we are concerned about the future development of Taiwan, we should understand that both the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines should have been scrapped when Beijing passed its "Anti-Secession" Law last March. Therefore, "seriously considering" whether or not to get rid of a government agency and a doctrine whose goal is the achievement of cross-strait unification is not at all problematic.
China's "Anti-Secession" Law legitimizes the use of force against Taiwan, which is tantamount to declaring war on Taiwan.
Besides, over the years, China's military has kept an increasing number of ballistic missiles targeted at Taiwan and aimed to establish what it called contingency-response combat capabilities by next year, building up combat capabilities for large-scale military engagement by 2010 and to ensure victory in a decisive battle by 2015. In view of this plan, isn't Beijing simply preparing for a thorough alteration of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait?
We should understand that Chen proposed the "Four Noes" on the condition that China abstain from using military force against Taiwan. However, the "Anti-Secession" Law is a clear indication that Beijing has every intention of waging war on Taiwan. China's actions have invalidated any promises Chen made, for it has already unilaterally changed the status quo by enacting the "Anti-Secession" Law.
We cannot but wonder if it is reasonable for the world to ask Taiwan to keep its promise while allowing Beijing to unilaterally change the status quo.
I would like to urge all the nation's opposition leaders not to be lenient toward our enemy any more, for it has already committed a breach of trust by authorizing the use of force against Taiwan. If we appease the Chinese aggressor, Taiwan will only suffer as a result.
Faced with China's provocative intentions to challenge the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, we should remain unwavering. Thus, scrapping the National Unification Council is a proper reaction to China's constant provocative actions. Only by doing so can we achieve the actual status quo across the Taiwan Strait.
Huang Tien-lin is a national policy adviser to the president.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
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