Now both sides of the pan-blue pan-green political spectrum support including a referendum in the next presidential election. In expressing disapproval of the referendum effort, the US may now have helped ignite stronger disapproval from China. It is clear that some means of preventing a serious problem in the Taiwan Strait is needed, or -- at the very least -- means of minimizing any harm to US interests.
Several issues have developed since Taiwan applied for UN membership under the name "Taiwan." The US very early on openly stated that it opposed this effort, and needless to say, China did as well. Taiwan insists it must continue pressing for the referendum as both political parties agree that the people of Taiwan support it -- and elections are not far off.
There has been some disapproval of the US' actions against Taiwan in the Taiwanese media, harkening back to other events that were not perceived as friendly. One event is President Chen Shui-bian's (
On that day I met Lee on the airliner and he was dressed as one would be in a plane, not in pajamas as some say. That talk with him was the best meeting I had with him over several years. He was strong in his talk, but not angry, and he had a lot to say to me to go and tell Washington. There are books that carry on about his trip to Cornell University, often with similar inaccurate representations.
But for Taiwan, things will always be different. To demonstrate this, my favorite example of changes in Taiwan is the expression in the first US-China Communique.
The text reads: "The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China."
It originally said "all the people" agree that Taiwan is a part of China. It was changed by the US State Department to use the word "Chinese." We see now that a growing number of people in Taiwan do not see themselves as "Chinese" in that sense. They are Taiwanese, and that is why, way back in 1972, the word was changed.
In terms of continuing policies, China clearly continues its policy in the same way it always has: Taiwan is a part of China and that's it. Can the US continue its fundamental policies on cross-strait issues? Taiwan inevitably cannot. The US has a dialogue with China, but what is needed is a dialogue between the US and Taiwan that would keep problems from getting out of control.
Referendums are common in democracies, and having not had one in Taiwan for so long and then being told not to is not easy. Taiwanese know they have that right and political leaders are not likely to give it up. Perhaps the leaders could convince the people that the referendum could be put off for the time being if the country -- and the people's livelihoods -- could be lifted now.
One thing that might contribute to that is a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). There has been some talk that the US ought to offer an FTA to Taiwan for a variety of reasons, the main one being that it would be good for both the US and Taiwan. Perhaps there is some possibility in that.
Whatever can be decided between the US and Taiwan in that regard would not only contribute to Taiwan's economic or security matters at home, but would also strengthen its democratic system. It would also likely be helpful in international matters -- and for strengthening the US' position in East Asia.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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