President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) Lunar New Year remarks that he would seriously consider abolishing the National Unification Council and seek UN membership under the name of "Taiwan" have sparked a series of domestic and international debates.
In response to Washington's complaint that Chen had come up with another "surprise" to change the cross-strait status quo, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government denied that there has been any change to Taiwan's policy, saying that Chen's comment was simply a "thought," not a foregone conclusion.
Both Washington and the pan-blue camp should consider why Chen brought up this issue at this time, instead of merely dismissing it as an explicit attempt to cross the "red line" by changing the status quo across the Taiwan Strait.
In fact, Chen's remark was a timely reminder to those who have overlooked the extent to which China has developed its military capability to sabotage Taiwan, and its continued strategy to unite with the pan-blue opposition to obstruct the DPP government.
While demanding that Chen abide by what he pledged in his 2000 inaugural speech, both the domestic audience and the international community should re-examine Chen's pledges more fairly.
Chen promised not to declare independence, not to change the national title, not to push the inclusion of the so-called "state-to-state" model in the Constitution, not to promote a referendum on changing the status quo regarding the question of independence or unification, and not to raise the question of abolishing the National Unification Council and the guidelines for national unification.
But the pledges carry a proviso: They are only valid if China has no intention of attacking Taiwan. And Beijing's aggrandizement of military power, its buildup of ballistic missiles and its authorization of the People's Liberation Army to use force against Taiwan by passing of the so-called "Anti-Secession" Law last March constitute an explicit intention and capability to attack Taiwan.
Ironically, most people tend to unilaterally and unfairly monitor Chen to check if his government has broken the promises, while ignoring the fact that China has continuously expanded its military threat against Taiwan.
A more pragmatic analysis of who exactly is attempting to change the status quo across the Taiwan Strait shows that Beijing has been continuously rocking the boat while pointing the finger at Taiwan. When Taiwan complains about China's military intimidation and its political isolation campaign, the whole world often accuses Taiwan of stirring up unnecessary trouble and provoking the "rising China."
Is constantly attacking Taiwan a fair way to judge the cross-strait status quo? Is squeezing Taiwan's throat the most effective way to restrain Beijing's military rise? Can the Taiwanese people be allowed the freedom of choosing their own destiny instead of unilaterally accepting ultimate unification with China?
The main reason why Washington described Chen's announcement as a "surprise" was largely because it would draw an angry response from Beijing.
However, just because the Bush administration does not anticipate any "noise" from the Chen administration, that does not mean the Taiwanese people should pretend Beijing's threats to Taiwan are invisible.
While Washington may be blind to cross-strait reality and consider everything Chen has done to maintain Taiwan's sovereignty and independent nationhood as a threat to the national interest, the pan-blue camp's leaders should be ashamed for failing to uphold Taiwan's national interests against China's "divide and conquer" strategy.
To make things worse, the pan-blues have been brainwashing the Taiwanese with their view of cross-strait relations. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou
Ma's abuse of his overrated popularity could possibly create a "domino effect" by misleading the public into thinking that Beijing posed only a minimal military threat, thereby undermining the nation's internal unity.
If Ma and the KMT want to regain the presidency in 2008, they should tell the voters right now how they plan to deal with China's military threats. Ma should tell the voters and the international community that it is up to the 23 million Taiwanese people to decide Taiwan's future relationship with China.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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