The US Congress and Australian and Dutch parliaments have passed motions rebuking the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for twisting the meaning of UN Resolution 2758. The EU Parliament late last month, in an overwhelming majority, voted to rebuke the CCP for its twisting and manipulation of the resolution, as well as to rebuke it for its military provocations aimed at Taiwan. The body went further in demanding that EU member states support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations.
Following the US-China trade dispute and the COVID-19 pandemic, the international community has become aware that Taiwan’s security is intimately tied to global prosperity and the general good. Because of this relationship, the world is paying increasingly closer attention to China’s attempts to threaten Taiwan militarily.
More countries support upholding the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait and are blaming China for sagging commodity prices and product dumping across the globe, while criticizing the CCP for its drive toward refashioning a new global economy in its image and auspices.
The international community is also becoming aware of China’s manipulation of the UN resolution, which only touches upon the right of Beijing to represent China in the UN. It has nothing to do with China’s territorial claims, nor Taiwan’s sovereignty.
Yet the CCP has twisted and reinterpreted it in documents posted across all corners of the Internet to make the dubious claim that “Taiwan is an inseparable part of China since ancient times.”
The historical reality is that the UN passed the resolution, which the regime of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) referred to as “conflating us with communist bandits,” as a way of gradually rebuilding a diametrically opposed world order in the aftermath of World War II. The rivalry between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Soviet Union regarding which country would lead the communist world was growing more acrimonious by the day. The US was intent on “using China to rein in the Soviets,” making it harder to justify blocking the PRC’s entry into the UN, and consequently expelling representatives from the Republic of China (ROC).
Sadly, Chiang Kai-shek insisted that “gentlemen and thieves cannot coexist” — a refusal to accept other UN member nations’ offers to propose a two-China solution with the ROC seated in the UN as “Taiwan.” That not only led to Taiwan’s status as an “international orphan,” it also further emboldened the CCP to use its doctored interpretation of UN Resolution 2758 to declare to the world that China had sovereignty over Taiwan.
However, Taiwan has since democratized and sought renewed and unrestricted reconnection with its roots and identity through localization. That has created a vibrant community and political body, not subservient to China, and capable of recognition by the world at large.
It is time for Taiwan to clarify to the international community the true contents of UN Resolution 2758. Unfortunately, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is claiming that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is ideologically manipulating the nation, and that if the ruling party does not step back, it would delay a joint declaration to the UN.
While the international community continues to pass resolutions supportive of Taiwan, the KMT-led legislature is instead petrified at the prospect of enraging the CCP. The pan-blue camp’s stalling prevents Taiwan from speaking in a unified voice, causing Taiwan-friendly nations and allies to lose heart in Taipei and sap the confidence of Taiwanese.
Much was wrong about the authoritarian rule of the Chiangs, but they were right to maintain their stalwart opposition to the CCP, with their “three noes” policy of no contact, no negotiating and no compromise. However, their objective of “counterattacking and retaking the mainland” and ideology of “reunifying China under the Three Principles of the People” were simply delusional.
With the advancement of Taiwanese politics in the post-Chiang era, several ironic phenomena occurred. The Chiangs played their hand poorly with their authoritarian rule, creating the conditions for the emergence of the DPP, while former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) of the KMT, the nation’s first president born and raised in Taiwan, was a strong advocate for democratization and localization movements.
He pushed for the implementation of direct elections for the legislature and the presidency, to the extent that some people later referred to him as the father of Taiwan’s democracy.
Lee was blamed for the defeat of the KMT’s presidential candidate, vice president Lien Chan (連戰), in the 2000 election, and was expelled from the party. Clearly, elements within the KMT were not on the same page as Lee on the path Taiwan should take.
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) would later serve two terms in office, during which he promoted the so-called “1992 consensus,” a term that former KMT legislator Su Chi (蘇起) admitted making up in 2000, ostensibly in the pursuit of peace in the Taiwan Strait, but actually with the intention of tying Taiwan closer to China.
During Ma’s tenure, cross-strait exchanges intensified, with Ma encouraging Taiwanese to invest in China, while the number of Chinese tourists increased dramatically.
However, Taiwan’s economy performed worse during that time than in recent history. By comparison, it was during former president Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration, when the CCP started its campaign of near-daily military intimidation and attempts at harming Taiwan’s economy, that Taiwan’s economic resilience in difficult circumstances caught the attention of the world.
The Chiangs could see straight through the CCP, and would not allow themselves to be taken in or manipulated by its “united front” attempts at annexing Taiwan.
Unfortunately, the KMT today has inherited the authoritarian policies of the Chiangs, and does not value Taiwan’s democracy. It leans more toward China’s authoritarian regime.
Not only is the KMT damaging Taiwan, it is also bringing shame to the legacy of the Chiangs that it purports to worship. At the same time, the “1992 consensus” that the pan-blue camp so assiduously clings to is outdated and completely at odds with the current cross-strait reality.
The pan-blue camp continues to insist that “each side has its own interpretation” of what “one China” means, even though the CCP does not recognize any other interpretation but its own.
The CCP has even run with it and produced Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) new formulation, suffixing it with “one China, two systems, Taiwan version.” The pro-China faction within the KMT refuses to face up to that.
The proportion of Taiwanese who support sovereignty and independence, and identify as Taiwanese has increased as the nation’s politics have evolved. They now make up the absolute majority of the population. By contrast, those who identify as Chinese and advocate for unification with China form a small minority. This is likely the main factor in the pan-blue camp’s consecutive losses in the past three presidential elections.
The DPP’s cross-strait policies are in line with the times and adjust to arising scenarios, which has gained them the public’s approval. The DPP was formed by multiple forces opposed to the KMT, and localization and democratic reforms were two of its major political demands. From the networking of democracy advocates during the Martial Law era to former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) call for “one country on each side of the Strait” to Tsai’s hybrid phrasing of “Republic of China, Taiwan,” there are few differences with the intrinsic nature of the “Republic of China on Taiwan” as espoused by Lee.
President William Lai (賴清德) in several important speeches explicitly stated there are two countries on either side of the Strait and that neither is subservient to the other.
Still, regarding the name “Republic of China,” which can be traced back to 113 years ago to the Wuchang Uprising that led to the Xinhai Revolution overturning the Qing Dynasty, Lai’s semantic usage shows that he does not deny the Chiangs’ arrival in Taiwan. His position is to keep with Taiwan’s ethnic composition and the nation’s historic development.
The CCP’s bullying of Taiwan is increasing daily with near-daily military drills surrounding the country, a rapid increase in China Coast Guard vessels patrolling Taiwanese waters off Kinmen and Lienchiang (Matsu) counties, and its attempt to redefine the Taiwan Strait as China’s internal waters.
In addition to the growing frequency of China’s operations in the South and East China seas, it is also aiding the pariah states of Russia and North Korea from the shadows. China’s ambitious brinkmanship behavior jeopardizes regional peace and the rules-based world order. This is why it has received much attention and rebuke from the free world.
However, despite the CCP being as jingoistic and adventuristic as it is, senior pan-blue camp figures are unable to break free from China’s alluring grip. Central KMT figures pay ideological reverence toward the CCP and are reticent to be on the receiving end of its wrath. Therefore the KMT continues to turn a blind eye toward China’s attempts at intimidation against Taiwan, instead embracing the CCP like a young child clinging to their parent’s leg. Such behavior has already put the KMT on an irredeemable road, and we ought to question whether it is worth it to support such a party and political camp.
Translated by Tim Smith and Paul Cooper
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hypersonic missile carried a simple message to the West over Ukraine: Back off, and if you do not, Russia reserves the right to hit US and British military facilities. Russia fired a new intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missile known as “Oreshnik,” or Hazel Tree, at Ukraine on Thursday in what Putin said was a direct response to strikes on Russia by Ukrainian forces with US and British missiles. In a special statement from the Kremlin just after 8pm in Moscow that day, the Russian president said the war was escalating toward a global conflict, although he avoided any nuclear
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
US President-elect Donald Trump has been declaring his personnel picks for his incoming Cabinet. Many are staunchly opposed to China. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Trump’s nomination to be his next secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, said that since 2000, China has had a long-term plan to destroy the US. US Representative Mike Waltz, nominated by Trump to be national security adviser, has stated that the US is engaged in a cold war with China, and has criticized Canada as being weak on Beijing. Even more vocal and unequivocal than these two Cabinet picks is Trump’s nomination for
An article written by Uber Eats Taiwan general manager Chai Lee (李佳穎) published in the Liberty Times (sister paper of the Taipei Times) on Tuesday said that Uber Eats promises to engage in negotiations to create a “win-win” situation. The article asserted that Uber Eats’ acquisition of Foodpanda would bring about better results for Taiwan. The National Delivery Industrial Union (NDIU), a trade union for food couriers in Taiwan, would like to express its doubts about and dissatisfaction with Lee’s article — if Uber Eats truly has a clear plan, why has this so-called plan not been presented at relevant
RSS