Repeated warnings from the US and China about the holding of a referendum on UN entry under the name "Taiwan" have so far failed to dampen the enthusiasm of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for its plebiscite plan.
Brushing off the move as an election gambit -- as the opposition and international media have done -- is dangerously over-simplifying the issue.
The referendum is about increasing Taiwanese consciousness among the public, especially younger generations, and making a statement to the world that -- contrary to the view that China bludgeons the international community into accepting -- the majority of Taiwanese do not consider their homeland to be part of China.
This kind of activity is essential if Taiwanese are to continue defending the nation's fragile democracy from absorption by its authoritarian neighbor.
Of course, it is also about mobilizing the pan-green vote. But name one political party that doesn't pull out all the stops to win an election.
Everyone knows that the UN bid, whatever name is used, is doomed to fail, but fear of failure should not be allowed to extinguish hope.
Nevertheless, China is intensifying its rhetoric, with a simultaneous increase in military activity aimed at worrying Taipei, while the US has already made its opinion clear and will no doubt up the ante as the election approaches, using any means possible to scupper the plebiscite.
Nevertheless, it was surprising this week to hear Lu De (
For Chinese officials to talk about using a democratic apparatus to counter Taiwan demonstrates just how riled Beijing's bigwigs are.
Whether Lu had official permission to air his views is unclear, but his words are just part of the usual mixture of threats and coercion that emerge from Beijing whenever Taiwan is planning something it doesn't like.
Government officials here would no doubt welcome the advent of a plebiscite in China and use it as proof that Taiwan's democracy can have a positive effect on its cross-strait rival.
But would a referendum in China really serve any purpose?
The result would be a foregone conclusion, as it is doubtful that anyone would be brave enough to vote against the party line on Taiwan's sovereignty.
Of course there are radical members of China's armed forces who would be willing to attack Taiwan tomorrow, but whether their view would hold sway before next year's Olympics and whether politicians would be willing to jeopardize China's international coming out party remain doubtful.
China has a lot to lose by taking reckless action over what is in effect a pointless vote, but failure to be seen to "rein in" Taiwan would cause the Communist Party leadership to appear toothless and deal a blow to its authority.
Because, despite the massive investment the Chinese military has made in the modernization of its weapons in recent years, doubts remain as to whether it has the necessary equipment and skill to pull off what would be the most ambitious amphibious landing since D-Day. The consequences of failure would be unthinkable. Add to this China's disastrous record of interfering in Taiwan's past elections, and a referendum, however undemocratically performed, would present Beijing with a face-saving compromise and a novel kind of stick with which to continue beating Taiwan.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS