Despite the fact that it needs final approval by the party congress, the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) Central Executive Committee passed the party's "normal country" draft resolution last Thursday.
In addition to recognizing the so-called "five abnormalities" of the nation's international relations, constitutional system, national identity, social justice and party competition, the draft document summed up the key policies the party has been pursuing since it came to power in 2000 -- changing the name of the nation and state-owned entreprises, constitutional re-engineering, joining the UN and the implementation of transitional justice.
The passage of the resolution coincided with the latest statements made by Dennis Wilder, senior director for Asian affairs at the US National Security Council, that the Republic of China (ROC) is an "undecided issue" and therefore neither Taiwan nor the ROC can be considered a country.
The main goal of the resolution is to normalize Taiwan as a sovereign nation. It advocates the deepening of Taiwan's democratic values and of a Taiwanese "consciousness" and suggests the government hold a national referendum at an "appropriate time" to demonstrate public opinion and the nation's sovereignty.
Before the 2000 presidential election, the DPP passed the "Resolution regarding Taiwan's future" with the aim of eliminating international concerns that the party and its candidate, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), were Taiwanese independence fundamentalists. The party's charter said it advocated the establishment of a Republic of Taiwan -- which could be considered by the international community as a move toward de-jure independence.
The campaign strategy of the Chen camp was to introduce a "new middle way" to cross-strait relations. The DPP had to work with Chen to elaborate a moderate and realistic approach to win over more moderate voters while at the same time remaining true to the party's existing values, such as recognizing Taiwan as an independent and sovereign country, that the status of the nation must be decided only by Taiwanese through a referendum and, most importantly, the rejection of the "one China" principle and the "one country, two systems" model.
Another key characteristic of the resolution was to accept that the name of the country is the "Republic of China" under its Constitution, while emphasizing the fact that Taiwan's jurisdiction extends only to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and its affiliated islands and territorial waters.
There is no doubt that Chen played a pivotal role in the passage of the 1999 resolution, leading the DPP to become a political force with moderate voters.
Eight years later, the DPP is looking to pass the "normal country" resolution to pave the way for its presidential nominee, Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), to win next year's presidential election. Most importantly, to avoid any misinterpretations, Hsieh's camp has successfully incorporated a good deal of pragmatism in the drafting process.
Safeguarding the nation's democracy and independent sovereignty, consolidating Taiwanese identity, ensuring the people's democratic right to hold a referendum to decide their future and rejecting China's political absorption of Taiwan are values shared by both resolutions. It shows both continuity and a transformation of the DPP's values.
But what differentiates the two resolutions is the fact that the former says the ROC is the name of the nation while the latter clearly suggests that it cannot be effectively used in the international community. Therefore, it advocates the use of "Taiwan" when applying for membership of major international organizations. It also says that in order to connect Taiwan with the rest of the world the nation should adopt the Gregorian calendar and stop using the ROC, or minkuo, calendar.
This decision is timely and correct because it represents mainstream public opinion and reflects political reality when it comes to Taiwan's international presence. The name ROC is often misleading and confuses the international community. The stress on the use of the name "Taiwan" will constantly remind the rest of the world that Taiwan and the People's Republic of China are two different political entities.
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