Barely a week passed after US President George W. Bush's speech in Prague lauding democracy before the US State Department began warning Taiwan about holding a referendum on using its natural name in its annual attempt to join the UN.
To its credit, Washington has made it clear that it doesn't oppose Taiwan's UN bid per se. And, while being fully aware of the referendum's meaning for direct democracy, the State Department has also let it be known that although it's not against referendums in principle, it will oppose all Taiwanese referendums that could incur Beijing's wrath. To put it more plainly, the State Department supports privileging Beijing's knee-jerk reactions.
Considering that Taiwan tried to enter the UN as the "Republic of China" for more than a decade and that the applications inevitably died, often without even eliciting a whimper from Beijing or Washington, Taiwanese can't help but wonder about the ruckus this time around.
Objectively, neither name would seem to provide Taiwan with a filament of a chance to get into the UN in the near future. Any difference between the two could only reside in a long-term aspect.
Given that Beijing won't possibly relinquish its UN seat, the name "Taiwan" would have the advantage of at least not warranting an automatic rejection.
In the short term, Taiwanese enthusiasm appears to feed on objections from Washington and Beijing. But the referendum is not only a reaction to the suffocation that Taiwanese endure internationally, but also a natural phase in the evolution of Taiwan's democracy.
It's fitting that any referendum will be held concurrently with next year's presidential election. If the timing enhances the chance of passage, it's only because Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his party might find it hard to mount an effective derailing maneuver while mindful of popular sentiment in an election year.
In the meantime, Beijing's efforts to form an international chorus of condemnation against Taiwan seem to be falling far short. Perhaps most countries find it difficult to support China's cause, which, save for Beijing's belligerence, lacks rationale.
The fact remains that referendums are an inalienable democratic right, regardless of how other democracies, including the US, would wish to give Taiwan's democracy short thrift.
The fact also remains that Taiwanese have a history of taking a dim view of Beijing's animosity. The subject of UN membership might become another rallying cause next year, not dissimilar to the 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally in 2004.
Given incessant opposition from Beijing and the US, and given how determined the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwanese are to go through with this referendum, a classical Mexican standoff seems to be imminent.
In reality, Taiwanese are deciding the outcome with the ballots they alone possess. Should they hold fast and succeed in passing the referendum in a landslide, they would be setting a precedent that would bode well for weighty issues such as a new constitution and also reverberate strongly on Taiwanese confidence for further endeavors.
This partially stems from the fact that Taiwanese would get a taste of how democracy could help them ward off external bullying, considering that the State Department would have no choice but to cower under democracy, while Beijing could continue to huff and puff but not do much else.
Defeatists would claim that passing the referendum would not help Taiwan's case for entering the UN -- at least not immediately. But they forget that old adage regarding the merit of taking the first step on a long journey. They also overlook the point as to why, if the issue were futile, Taiwan's detractors would be so keyed up.
A referendum poses quite a quandary for Beijing. For starters, even if it were passed and even if Taiwan were to proceed with widely derided, quixotic efforts to break open the UN gate, no red line would have been crossed, because Taiwan still wouldn't have changed its national name or its flag. Taiwan might therefore have found a way to sidestep the red line, while constructing a spirited platform for Taiwanese to highlight their plight.
Should Taiwanese use the UN General Assembly session to stage domestic rallies and to amass great numbers of expatriates in front of the UN headquarters in New York to sway the international community, the potential for making the impossible possible should not be underestimated.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS