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
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