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.
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