A primer for cross-strait relations

By Chen Hurng-yu

`The biggest problem for Taiwan created by the 1971 framework for cross-strait relations is its continued claim to sovereignty over China.'

China has on several occasions recently tried to sabotage Taiwan's official membership status in the WTO. The pressure it puts on Taiwan's room to maneuver internationally is repeated and clear evidence that cross-strait relations are not warming, and that China's stance towards Taiwan is not softening. In this situation, Taipei should seriously consider changing its foreign policy and depart from the 1971 framework for cross-strait relations.

A review of the development of cross-strait relations shows that the withdrawal by the Republic of China (ROC) from the UN in 1971 was an important watershed. It has had a major influence on the ensuing cross-strait relationship, making it difficult for Taiwan to extract itself from the mire of "one country, two systems."

Prior to the ROC's 1971 withdrawal from the UN, our nation represented all of China in the UN and other international organizations. The government on Taiwan also claimed sovereignty over all China. In the atmosphere of the Cold War, Taiwan, with the support of the US and some European nations, was the legal representative government of all China for 22 years. Following the UN's rejection of Taiwan's right to represent China in 1971, China has been represented by the government in Beijing.

Our Constitution remains unchanged and continues to claim sovereignty over all China. In other words, the claims of Beijing and Taipei overlap. The international community, however, only recognizes one government per nation. Since the UN has already decided that the government in Beijing represents all China, Taiwan obviously cannot represent all China. Given this situation, a majority of nations around the world also recognize Beijing as the representative of all China. Be it in the UN or in the international community [in general], the government in Beijing is recognized as the representative of China.

Although Taiwan cannot be described as a local government under the government of China, it is in reality difficult for it not to be seen as part of the Chinese government in accordance with international law.

If Taiwan wanted to once again represent China, being a tiny little island, it would be displaying an inability to assess its own strength. Not only that, but it would also be ignoring the realities of international politics. Because the foreign policy of KMT governments after the UN rejection of Taiwan's right to represent China has been to persistently claim to be the representative of China -- the so-called "one China, with each side having its own interpretation" -- and because national sovereignty has not been redefined by constitutional amendment, Taiwan has come to be seen by the international community as a "political entity" belonging to that one China.

In the past, we have accepted the fuzzy expression "political entity" as being appropriate and correct, even though we all know that this policy slowly has pushed us towards China's "one country, two systems" framework.

In all international activities where Beijing does not object to Taiwanese participation, Taiwan participates under the name "Chinese Taipei." Foreigners don't differentiate between "Chinese Taipei" and "Taipei, China." Using "Chinese Taipei" is merely a matter of [Taiwanese] finding consolation in the belief that it is different from "Taipei, China."

We must note, however, that, internationally speaking, "Chinese Taipei" does not denote a sovereign body, and this is something we actually have accepted repeatedly in various international organizations. Maybe we have been too eager for international participation in the past, thinking that participation at any cost is fine and ignoring the name under which we achieve this participation. There is, however, a kind of "inertia" particular to the international community -- if you use a name for a long period of time, other nations will require that you keep using that name. "Chinese Taipei" is an example of this.

There is another issue which we have to face head on -- the issue of why China keeps interfering with our name use and our status. The reason is simple. Because the sovereignty claimed by the governments in Beijing and Taipei overlap, and because the international community recognizes the government in Beijing as representing China, that government has the right to interfere in Taiwan's activities, which is seen by Beijing as a local government.

Turning the issue on its head -- under what circumstances won't Beijing interfere with Taiwan's activities? The government in Beijing would not be in a position to interfere when Taiwan is a separate soverign nation enjoying the rights and privleges of legitimate persons recognized on the international stage. Let's use the entry into the UN by both East and West Germany in 1973 and both North and South Korea in 1992 as an example. The two Germanies and the two Koreas were declared separate countries with different governmental jurisdictions. Official issues such as mutual boycotts of each other's name and representative rights have never occurred.

The biggest problem for Taiwan created by the 1971 framework for cross-strait relations is its continued claim to sovereignty over China. For some people, equating the ROC with all China is an important part of their nostalgia for their homeland, and this is something we should sympathize with and understand. But holding on to this nostalgia while ignoring reality will create far-reaching problems.

Taking a look at the real world, no one today entertains the idea that Taiwan has the power to fight its way back to China or take over China. For people who used to think so, traveling to their old home is no longer a distant dream, since they now are free to do so. Most people in favor of unification are exercizing their freedom, thanks to Taiwan's democratic system, to hold any political position they so desire. But if you told them to go live in China, they might not be so willing to be a part of China. Beijing doesn't necessarily place any trust in these proponents of unification since it involves sensitive political issues and issues of political exploitation.

There are many systemic, civilizational and cultural differences between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. Unification would be no easy matter. Maybe we should take a direct look at the issue of what substantive advantages and benefits unification would bring us, what disadvantages and harm abandoning unification would bring, and whether abandoning unification would lead to disaster.

Should we, then, go on waiting, hoping that the systems on each side of the Taiwan Strait will gradually converge so that unification can be achieved 50 years or more into the future? Our political elite has spent much time arguing over the issue of Taiwan's international status. Unable to make their minds up, the members of the elite keep going in circles, making this controversy the most longstanding and omnipresent issue in Taiwanese life. It is a fact that we can't make our minds up due to the extent of the dispute, but it seems the political leaders of our nation should be more daring and resolute in leading the public down the road of stability.

Regardless of why the old Taiwanese left the old country, they remain nostalgic for it in their hearts. But once in their new home in Taiwan, regardless of when they immigrated, they made a promise to work together for this land. Building a new home must have been the common ideal of our forefathers as they left the old country. Their situation was the same as those of the people coming to Taiwan after 1949, from broken homes in the old country, worthy of sympathy.

Those of the later immigrants that stay on in Taiwan have surely grown to like this place, and their decision to stay on should be welcomed by the earlier immigrants. Not only does this increase the island's work force, but old and new Taiwanese work to temper each other, and oppose invaders and create a beautiful home together. The year 1949 lies more than half a century in the past, and the second and third generations [of those later immigrants] are getting rooted in Taiwan. They interact well with the Taiwanese whose ancestors came earlier, so this should be the right time to consider Taiwan's direction.

Based on this, we hope that the later and earlier immigrants will stand together, and work together to find a new direction for Taiwan.

Even though the government abolished the temporary provisions effective during the period of communist rebellion in 1991, it is only a declaration recognizing the government in Beijing as a political entity and doesn't solve the problem of Taiwan's sovereignty. If we want a place in the international community, we must respect international norms.

Making the quest for sovereignty over a single country and one single government our goals while avoiding a sovereignty overlap with China, we must amend the 1971 framework for cross-strait relations.

Chen Hurng-yu is a professor of history at National Chengchi University.

Key referendum could be done via cellphones

By Fiona Lu

STAFF REPORTER

A "mock referendum" that could be carried out via cellphone on short messaging service (SMS) technology was proposed yesterday after a disputed referendum bill was tabled in legislature just as it broke for summer recess last week.

Proposed by a local telecommunications company, the mock referendum is comprised of questions that may be asked if the proposed referendum law were approved:

-- Should the nation conduct a referendum for on WHO membership?

-- Should construction on the fourth nuclear project be continued?

-- Should the nation change its name?

The mock referendum could be accessed by all cellphone users in Taiwan, according to Ken Chen, an executive at the company.

The program would accumulate responses from cellphone users via SMS after the messages are approved through a check to screen out repeat voters, Chen said.

He was confident that the referendum because would be credible because of widespread use of SMS in Taiwan.

"The referendum -- collecting votes through the SMS system -- is reliable since the prevalence of SMS use pervades a wide spectrum of the electorate," Chen told reporters.

He cited official statistics from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications in January that indicated individual cellphone users sent 10 messages on average per month.

Multiparty lawmakers endorsed the mock-referendum concept, saying that the proposed SMS referendum provides a high-tech alternative for conducting public surveys.

Such a survey could help pollsters more easily gather information about the young generation who are the primary cellphone users, DPP Legislator Julian Kuo said.

Apollo Chen, a KMT lawmaker, agreed with the idea of carrying out a mock referendum, saying that the government should seriously consider the idea.

"It doesn't matter how many advisory referendums are held if the government decides to carry out such a pole because it could help to cut short the debate on formulating a referendum law," Chen said.

Passport to paradise

It's hard to understand the logic and attitudes behind the argument that this nation's passports should only bear the words "Republic of China" (ROC) but not "Taiwan." It is beyond doubt that people living in Taiwan are different from those living in the PRC.

If the legislature or the opposition parties continue to claim that the ROC's territory includes China, this will certainly be an international joke. If they are really following the doctrine of the late president Chiang Ching-kuo and define the jurisdiction of the ROC as Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, then they will agree that the people of this nation need to distinguish themselves from PRC citizens in the international community. This is a reasonable approach. It shouldn't have been a problem to begin with.

Many Taiwanese traveling abroad have been mistaken for PRC citizens when they show their ROC passports. The government certainly needs to print the word "Taiwan" on passports in order to prevent such confusion, as well as the unnecessary trouble that ensues. This is also what the international community expects. Why should the Ministry of Foreign Affairs continue to hesitate over the matter?

The fact that some ministry officials continue to drag their feet on the matter reflects the fears they are harboring toward independence. They fear that by putting "Taiwan" on the passports they may be replacing "ROC" with "Taiwan" as the name of the country, and cause Taiwan to become "independent." Beijing may react strongly to this by sending out its military forces to attack Taiwan or its outlying islands. Is it going to be that serious? The government has the responsibility to make its citizens clearly distinguishable from PRC citizens in the eyes of the international community, and the passport is a good official instrument for doing this. Fears about a possible Chinese attack over this are far-fetched.

Remember the missile crisis of March 1996? Taiwan got through the incident intact, didn't it? So why worry so much about Beijing's response? The government should do what it must to safeguard the interests of its people, even if that means military risks. It can't take its cues from Beijing.

Beijing has never given up its authoritarian habits. It has never been willing to face up to reality. Decisions are always made by a handful of top cadres who have no concern whatsoever for the fact that sovereign power rests in the hands of the people. For Taiwan to try to communicate with them would be like trying to entertain an ox with a harp. Beijing's recent actions at the World Health Organization and the WTO show that Beijing has always viewed Taiwan as an enemy. It has invariably opposed anything that benefits Taiwan. So why should we care about the likes and dislikes of Beijing?

On the other hand, didn't the KMT advocate Taiwan as an independent sovereign state when it was in power? How come it has begun to echo the PFP's "one China" dictum since losing power? Does the KMT think it is worthwhile to pressure the government to accept the "one country, two systems" model just to win back power? Hasn't anyone learned a lesson from Hong Kong's painful experience?

The government should implement policies that are supported by public opinion. Surveys conducted by the foreign ministry show that more than 50 percent of the public supports putting the word "Taiwan" on the nation's passports. There's no reason for the government to keep wringing its hands over this issue. It should show some determination and do what is right for the people of this nation.

Lien, Soong must work on their duties now

By Chiou Chang-tay

A US scholar of politics once said that the vice president is actually the loneliest politician in the US White House.

Although the position is lofty, a vice president has no substantial power at all. Although the vice president can share the president's worries, he or she can't share the president's statutory responsibilities.

Hence, during a presidential election campaign, the role of a vice presidential candidate is defined as a running mate.

Neither ability nor resolution of a vice presidential candidate are primary considerations. Rather, he or she is nominated in order to attract votes from all sides with his or her fame and popularity.

For the pan-blue cooperation between KMT Chairman Lien Chan and PFP Chairman James Soong, the definition of the role of the vice presidential candidate is a very important issue.

The alliance

The KMT-PFP alliance should deal with the matter openly, and clearly draw up the division of leadership between the two men on the basis of the nation's Constitution.

Otherwise, the parties risk having a vice presidential candidate that will want to outshine the presidential candidate, causing pan-blue voters to wonder who they are really voting for.

When the alliance was formed, the terms of the agreements were released in their joint memorandum, and were fully understood by the public. Since Soong has already agreed to be Lien's running mate, he should use his fame and popularity -- mostly accumulated during his term as governor of the former Taiwan provincial government -- to further unite the "pan-blue" camp.

The delay

However, the legislature's decision to delay the confirmation of the nominees for the Council of Grand Justices and the exposure of the alleged secret pact between Soong and Lien have demonstrated Soong's ambition and resolve.

We can't help but wonder: Will a second ambitious vice president who wants to accomplish great tasks appear in Taiwan?

Looking at Chen Shui-bian's administration, we can see that an excessively ambitious vice president may easily hurt his or her close relations with the president. A vice president is destined to be lonely and voiceless.

Waves and wind

After launching a joint campaign, Lien and Soong should have made a good impression on voters, making them believe that the two are partners who closely cooperate with and fully trust each other. Although both the KMT and the PFP strongly denied the alleged secret agreements on future government leadership, I personally believe that "there are no waves without wind," as the Chinese saying goes.

Weaknesses

Although the Lien-Soong ticket does enjoy certain fundamental advantages, it has three fatal weaknesses: One, the combination of the two old men -- who are both in their 60s now -- will be unable to attract young voters.

Two, the closed-door politics they employ will only irritate the moderate voters.

Three, their pro-unification stance can hardly gain the public's trust.

If Lien and Soong really want to bring new hope to Taiwan, they should make the KMT-PFP should come up with a younger combination and actively promote "sunshine politics" and a pro-Taiwan stance to get rid of their old baggage.

Chiou Chang-tay is director of the Research Center for Public Opinion and Election Studies.