For a long time, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) described the number of Taiwanese separatists as "a handful." If there were really only "a handful" of individuals who insist on Taiwanese independence, then the referendum to enter the UN would undoubtedly end in defeat.
Strangely, the KMT is nervous about a referendum that they claim is destined to fail, even going so far as to oppose the central government by insisting on two-step voting.
The US is exhibiting another kind of contradiction: For the last 20 years, it has frequently reassured China that it does not support Taiwanese independence. If it does not support independence, then it is none of the US's business, and Washington should be happily unconcerned.
Why has the US been anxious about Taiwan's referendum to the point of asking American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Stephen Young and AIT Chairman Raymond Burghard to convince Taiwan that the referendum is unnecessary, unbeneficial and would only cause trouble?
China and the US are anxious about the referendum to join the UN under the name Taiwan, but not at all concerned about the KMT's referendum to return to the UN. If Taiwan joins the UN, it is to peacefully exist on a mutually beneficial basis with China; yet if the Republic of China returned to the UN, then it must expel the People's Republic of China in order to do so.
The second option is clearly more troublesome, so why are China and the US so worried about the Democratic Progressive Party's referendum?
It's obvious that although the KMT calls it "a handful," it knows full well that the majority of Taiwanese support independence. This is a significant constraint on the KMT's efforts at a comeback and a major problem for the CCP's goal of peaceful unification.
Chinese political analyst Ruan Ming (阮銘) has said it is China that worries most about military action. Though Beijing claims it will invade if Taiwan declares independence, we are reminded of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) question to China's war hawks in 1996: "Fight? Fight? What if the economy breaks down, then what will we do?"
The US has the same problem. Though they claim not to support Taiwanese independence, they cannot avoid intervention if China invades Taiwan. This is why the US does not want Taiwan to "make trouble." What Washington really means is that Taiwan should not make trouble for the US.
Should we try to lighten the burden on the US and China by leaving Taiwan in a situation where it is continually oppressed or should we manage our own plight, leaving the US and China to deal with their own problems?
The answer is the latter, and the referendum is a great solution: It expresses the desire of the Taiwanese for formal independence, but does not immediately sink China and the US into an extremely problematic situation.
This is because even if the referendum were passed, Taiwan would not be given immediate UN membership and the national title would not immediately become "Republic of Taiwan." China would not have to worry about staging an immediate invasion and the US would not be embroiled in conflict right away.
They would, though, have to ask: "What's next?"
And when they start asking us for the next move, it indicates that we are no longer in the passive position of being oppressed. Hence the referendum also functions as a bargaining chip, allowing us to secure our ground and advance as we choose.
With this bargaining chip, we have a useful tool not only in resisting or negotiating with China, but also in responding to the neglect with which the international community has treated us, as evidenced by the claim that Taiwan is not a country, as made by Dennis Wilder, the Senior Director of Asian Affairs at the US National Security Council.
We can tell the world that Taiwan is not an international orphan and not a province of autocratic China.
Passing the referendum will set a restraint upon Taiwan's next president. If DPP candidate Frank Hsieh (
All things considered, the referendum to join the UN has many benefits and no detriments. We must break through the two-step voting trap set by the KMT and actively cast affirmative ballots.
Lee Hsiao-feng is a professor at the Graduate School of Taiwan Culture at National Taipei University of Education.
Translated by Angela Hong
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS