During World War I, US president Woodrow Wilson proposed to resolve territorial conflicts around the world through the principle of self-determination.
When the UN was formed after World War II, it declared that self-determination was a major principle of international law.
As its charter stresses, one of the UN’s major aims is to “develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”
In 1966, the UN passed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states: “All peoples have the right of self-determination.
“By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development,” it says.
Thanks to the principle of self-determination, those who have been colonized or have been ruled by foreign regimes are able to declare independence and build their own countries.
For an independent, sovereign state, this principle can also be applied to remove foreign interference or threats, to maintain national sovereignty and ensure that the nation’s status and future will be decided by the public.
Since 1945, Taiwan has transformed from a land of military occupation into an independent, sovereign state characterized by freedom and democracy.
However, bilateral relations between Taiwan and China have changed significantly since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) came to power on May 20.
Ma’s government has repeatedly violated campaign promises by leaning toward China to the extent that the status quo of “one country on each side” of the Taiwan Strait has been severely challenged.
Where should Taiwan go now?
I believe that Taiwan’s future must be decided by all our people, not by political slogans, and that any change to the status quo must be decided by Taiwanese through democratic processes.
Taiwan has a dual challenge. Internationally, it faces China’s military threat and its ambition to annex Taiwan.
Domestically, the Ma administration is breaking campaign promises by leaning too closely toward China.
This behavior has damaged the dignity of Taiwanese as well as jeopardized the health, stability and welfare of our society.
Therefore, Taiwanese must stand up and decide their future for themselves and realize self-determination in a referendum.
The long-cherished principle of self-determination is sacred and nobody can deprive us of it.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will hold a rally tomorrow in the name of “safeguarding Taiwan.”
At a time when the nation is facing critical challenges internationally and domestically, this gathering is of great significance.
We must take real action and participate in the event. We must take to the streets hand in hand to protest against the Ma government and express our opposition to its pro-China policies.
We must demonstrate to the international community the public’s will to secure Taiwan’s status as an independent, sovereign state.
Chen Lung-chu is chairman of the Taiwan New Century Foundation.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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