US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said recently he thinks President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) should clarify whether his latest statements about a referendum and a new constitution violate his "four noes" pledge. Opposition parties and several media outlets hurried to add fuel to the flames by blaming Chen for once again having stepped over the line in the sand with regard to the US' Taiwan policy.
As the US is unable to distinguish between the political parties here, it is only natural for them to try to put down the brakes on referendum talk, and try to cool things down in order to avoid further tensions in cross-strait relations.
So has Chen overstepped his boundaries? Judging from his inauguration speeches in 2000 and this year, as well as the "10 points" he made during a speech last month, he seems to be standing firmly on his promise not to declare independence, change the national flag or title, or hold a referendum on unification or independence. But he has also promised the people of Taiwan a suitable new constitution during his term -- and that it will be decided via a referendum. At a quick glance, these two promises seem to be contradictory, but a more thorough look reveals his advocacy of amending the Constitution as being on the safe side of the US' "bottom line."
First, the Constitution in its current form was created in China, in 1947. It is a Constitution aimed at ruling the vast territories and population of China, Tibet and Mongolia, and as such it is of course unsuitable to the territory and people currently under its jurisdiction. The Constitution has been amended six times, but this piecemeal approach has failed to meet current needs. A one-time comprehensive constitutional amendment is necessary and also meets the public's expectations.
Second, in his May 20 inauguration speech, Chen stated specifically that since there was no domestic consensus over what to do about the national flag, national title and the territories mapped out by the Constitution, these would not be subject to amendment. As the symbols of the nation are not to be included in the discussions over constitutional amendments -- and any amendment will be confined to restructuring the administrative and political system -- then clearly Chen has not gone beyond the parameters set by the US.
The articles for constitutional amendment recently passed by the legislature include the dissolution of the National Assembly so that future amendments will be subject to approval through referendums. This is a legally required procedure in the amendment process. People should not be shocked when they see the words "constitutional amendment" and "referendum" together. A referendum is only a formality, and what is important is whether the nature of the proposed amendments fall within a respectable degree of tolerance. Washington is unable to distinguish between the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) "constitutional amendment referendum" and the Taiwan Solidarity Union's (TSU) "referendum on correcting the name of Taiwan and rewriting the Constitution."
The DPP advocates a constitutional amendment that will retain the country's national emblems, while the TSU advocates the creation of a new constitution for the nation of Taiwan. Because of this divergence over amendments and the creation of a new constitution, Chen and former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) have aired their differences publicly. Washington should not confuse the proposals of the DPP and the TSU, even though they are both a part of the pan-green camp.
Every country needs to make adjustments to its laws in response to a changing environment. Although Taiwan's international situation is unusual and it often finds itself under international scrutiny, it retains the right to build a political system adapted to its needs, so long as this action does not negatively impact its security and that of the international community.
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 last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS