The controversy over whether President Chen Shui-bian (
It is reported that Chen's move is aimed primarily at rebutting Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (
As perhaps the most popular candidate from the pan-blue camp for the next presidential elections, Ma has no choice but to reveal his stance on cross-strait relations. Regretfully, Ma's comments on Taiwan's status quo and future relations with China demonstrates a huge lack of recognition of the cross-strait reality and a failure to consistently uphold democratic principles.
Ma's change of tone from initially "embracing unification as the sole option for Taiwan" to "the future of Taiwan should be decided by people across the Taiwan Strait" and then to "accepting independence as one of the options for Taiwan's future relationship with China" displayed the inconsistencies in his political philosophy.
Although the KMT clarified Ma's comments as meaning that "it is up to the Taiwanese people to decide whether to unify with or be independent from China, but the KMT still opposes independence and favors maintaining the status quo," there is an urgent need for both political parties to use the debate to generate a domestic consensus on how to safeguard the cross-strait status quo.
The key idea behind Chen's proposal to abolish the council and guidelines is consolidating the people's democratic right to freedom of choice. Chen and his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have long insisted on leaving the decision on the future of cross-strait relations to all the people of Taiwan. They oppose any individual or political party unilaterally deciding the nature of Taiwan's future ties with China.
As maintaining the status quo of Taiwan as an independent and sovereign nation is becoming the mainstream value domestically, it is understandable that Ma is testing the waters by throwing out the idea of respecting the people's freedom of choice.
Whether or not Ma is sincere enough to embrace this mainstream view remains to be seen. Ma and the KMT should put more effort toward condemning Beijing for deploying an increasing number of missiles targeting Taiwan -- currently 784 -- and stop placing all the blame for the cross-strait stalemate on the Chen administration.
Most importantly, Ma and his pan-blue colleagues should engage in constructive debate with the DPP on how to consolidate Taiwan's national security to defend against China's military expansion and the missiles it has targeted at Taiwan.
The opposition pan-blue camp's position in the new legislative session on the long-delayed arms procurement budget will determine whether a consensus on safeguarding national security can be reached. Hopefully, efforts to understand China's missile threat and the military balance across the Taiwan Strait can be further intensified.
The new legislative session provides an arena for cross-party debate. Apparently under pressure from Washington, Ma said earlier this month that the KMT will make public its proposal on the special arms sale bill.
Ma's ultimate willingness to deal with the issue of the arms purchase is conceivably a result of Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng's (王金平) recent stopover in Washington. The Bush administration has reportedly sent crucial messages to Ma denouncing the use of a "my way or the highway" approach in blocking the arms budget from being discussed in a legislative sub-committee.
Washington's impatience with Taiwan's consistent procrastination regarding the budget has resulted in great pressure being put not only on the government but also on the KMT. Therefore, finding ways to strengthen national security is the core issue that Ma cannot escape.
If Ma and his fellow pan-blue members can accuse Chen of violating his "five noes" pledge, how can they justify China's explicit intention and growing capability to take over Taiwan?
In any democracy, the opposition is entitled to act as a check and balance on government policies and budgets. But when it comes to matters of national security and national identity, Ma will have to speak out on how he views Beijing's intent to undermine the cross-strait status quo and what he can do to protect Taiwan's national interests.
A consensus on national security and identity is what Taiwan needs most now. It can only be reached through realistic and rational debate, not empty political rhetoric.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS