Chen abolishes NUC

Politics Taiwan Politics
41

Sorry, you are contradicting yourself. By pointing to a future event when Taiwan will be unified with mainland China, the NUC and the NUG indicate that the current status of Taiwan remains on the table?

This makes no sense. The NUC makes the assumption that Taiwan will be unified with ml China. So, by this assumption, “the current status of Taiwan” is that it is destined to be unified with the mainland in one way or another, regardless of what is the current reality. So if Taiwan IS to be unified with ml China, then there is no flexibility on the ultimite status of Taiwan. I have misinterpreted nothing.

42

[quote=“STOP_Ma”]
With his decision, he has:

  1. Pissed off China, in a predictable way – which will rally and bring focus to the DPP base.

  2. Established that this is an issue about “letting the people decide”

  3. Has successfully negotiated a compromise with the U.S.

  4. Has successfully baited Ma to directly contradict what he said on the BBC last week by making it an issue about “letting the people decide”.

  5. This decision makes it an election issue in 2008 – which will be very heavy baggage for Ma.

Yes. This decision could have backfired on him (as a lot of people thought it would) – but he has successfully managed a slam dunk on this – and I, for one, recognize that.[/quote]

You make it sound as though 1 and 3 bear no cost, a typical TI/er mistake that they always rue later. Remember the ASL and the US non-response to it? That was in direct response to CSB’s referendum gambit in 2003 where he (1) pissed off China, and (2) surprised the US with his provocation (what you call “successfully negotiated”).

As for baiting Ma, I don’t think he has succeeded. In addition, because the majority has been and still is against CSB’s latest gambit, it’s not a gain for the DPP or CSB at all. It’s a gain for CSB within his hardcore base only. Much good that does.

43

You mean the referendum that was voided due to KMT procedure demands?
(which Ma lied about during his BBC interview, by the way).

Do you have anything to back up that claim that the referendum was THE cause of the anti-secession law?

That law is “PRO-ACTIVE” in nature. It was not in reaction to any particular event.

We’ll see how positive it is for Ma after he backs down on his “recall” campaign and his judgement that this is a severe breach of the status quo and is asked this question:

44

Anyway, it was normal for Ma to be against it, because, more than anything, KMT is a Chinese Party, it is not a Taiwanese one, so theyr ultimate goal has to be China, no matter what. So something that goes against this simple principle is against the KMT itself. More than anything, scrapping bodies that represent this point of view is like going directly against the KMT, and all that they believe. No matter how Ma puts it (let the people decide), they allways been against Taiwan (in its dejure form). So anything that offers this possibility is, and will be, allways condemned by them. Now, more than ever, the two positions will be extremed.

In my POV, ceasing a body that has no function is nothing special. It is just signing below a statement of facts. Nothing more, nothing less. So give the guys a break for trying to end stuff in the government who has no function. Now they should continue to clean the government from other “jobs for the boys” entities.

45

You mean the referendum that was voided due to KMT procedure demands?
(which Ma lied about during his BBC interview, by the way).
[/quote]

No, I mean the whole thing of trying to pass a wide-open referendum law that could be used for any topic. At the same time, I believe CSB proposed its use on a new constitution, so it’s not a secret what he wanted.

Have you been on Mars lately? PRC Premier Wen Jiabao answered on a visit in UK during the brouhaha that an ASL would be a “good idea” because CSB was pushing it. CSB kept doing his own thing, and bingo, the ASL was passed.

The law’s non-peaceful clause is reactive. Also we’re talking about how the law came about and that is a reaction to lurches toward Taiwan independence. Face it, the entire history of cross-straits relationship from the early 1990s up to now has been defined by TI/ers pushing the envelope and PRC reacting, every step along the way. Talking to Lien and Soong was the first proactive steps taken by the PRC.

[quote]We’ll see how positive it is for Ma after he backs down on his “recall” campaign and his judgement that this is a severe breach of the status quo and is asked this question:

The NUC doesn’t need to be re-established because it wasn’t abolished. Read the US State Department press briefing from 2/27. Now if somebody asks Ma if the NUC will meet again under him or if the unification guidelines will be used, he could just say, as the condition applies as before, since they haven’t been used for years anyway.

46

Better?

47

[quote=“STOP_Ma”][quote=“zeugmite”]

Have you been on Mars lately? PRC Premier Wen Jiabao answered on a visit in UK during the brouhaha that an ASL would be a “good idea” because CSB was pushing it. CSB kept doing his own thing, and bingo, the ASL was passed.[/quote]

Please link me to a reference.
[/quote]

Even better, I’ll give you a timeline of references:

9/30/2003: Taiwan warned on independence
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p … 151522.stm
…because he wants a referendum

11/28/2003: China ‘concerned’ at Taiwan bill
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3245428.stm
…the referendum bill, that is

11/29/2003: Taiwan’s Chen hails new vote law
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p … 248718.stm
…passed, but a blue-camp watered down version… DPP brought for vote, then abstained on its own version at the last minute with US pressure

12/8/2003: China PM warns Taiwan over vote
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p … 297831.stm
in this article, appears a quote that gives the first instance of the type of language that later went into the ASL’s explanation: “as there is still a glimmer of hope, the Chinese Government will not give up its efforts for a peaceful unification and a peaceful settlement.”

12/8/2003: Taiwan seeks referendum change
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p … 299843.stm
Chen not satisfied with the compromise…

12/9/2003: Bush warns Taiwan over referendum
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3302339.stm

3/30/2004: Chen vows constitutional reform
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p … 581407.stm
Chen isn’t done yet… he wants to scrap ROC constitution and to make new one

5/11/2004: Wen Jiabao: Carefully considering a unification law
news8.thdo.bbc.co.uk/chinese/sim … 703407.stm
When asked by a questioner… he says such a law “very important,” he would carefully consider it

7/30/2004: Beijing warns of war with Taiwan
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3938617.stm
Chen still isn’t done… Warning! Non-peaceful clause of ASL telegraphed!

and the finale…

3/7/2005: China’s explanation of Anti-Secession Law
taiwandc.org/reuters-2005-03.htm
Here it is again: “No one is more desirous of achieving a peaceful reunification than we are. So long as there is a glimmer of hope for peaceful reunification, we will exert our utmost to make it happen rather than give it up.”

And just for kicks, just so this isn’t viewed in isolation, there was a series of things before this, too:

9/1/2003: Taiwan issues ‘provocative’ passports
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p … 197059.stm

The rest of your post, I’ll answer another time.

48

[quote]

Have you been on Mars lately? PRC Premier Wen Jiabao answered on a visit in UK during the brouhaha that an ASL would be a “good idea” because CSB was pushing it. CSB kept doing his own thing, and bingo, the ASL was passed. [/quote]

You have still not provided a link that shows that the Anti-secession law was “a direct response” to the the referendum.

I’ll agree that China has had a hard-on for Chen ever since he was elected in 2000, but the Anti-secession law was a “general” pro-active way to counter the TI movement. It was not an acute response to a void referendum.

49

[quote=“STOP_MA”]You have still not provided a link that shows that the Anti-secession law was “a direct response” to the the referendum.

I’ll agree that China has had a hard-on for Chen ever since he was elected in 2000, but the Anti-secession law was a “general” pro-active way to counter the TI movement. It was not an acute response to a void referendum.[/quote]

Maybe you don’t read Chinese, but in the 5/11/2004 article, it says

[quote]香港《明报》报道说，出席座谈会的法律专家称，制定

50

I’ll repeat your words for the nth time:

Of course the anti-secession law was in response to the TI agenda, however you have not given any references to it being an acute response to the 2003 void referendum.

But whatever…that’s for another thread and it really doesn’t matter.

51

There is a much, much bigger status quo issue in the world that will ultimately determine the relationship between the straits. It is the issue of if the dollar with continue to be the reserve currency for global finance. This article The End of Dollar Hemogeny by Congressman Ron Paul gives good insight (Feb 15). Another article I recommend is by Bill Moyer (Feb 27) Saving our Democracy It puts together the pieces of how washington operates. Remember that Taiwan paid millions to an elite lobby firm in the washington last year.

Lastly, this is an interesting/simple analysis of the Taiwan/China SQ issue on the DailyKos (good graphics): Serious Crisis?

tomtomtaiwan = good post on page3, i agree.

52

dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/27/75618/5862 has an interesting discussion of the subject.

This mythology that “The US wants to support democracies” is entirely shallow. The US will support dictators and ideologues alike, and attack undermine democracies as it sees fit, and as even a cursory reading of history amply demonstrates. It really only cares about its own interests and power. All this talk about democracy is a very thin veneer. Don’t believe the hype.

At the same time, the above link makes a good point that PRC really has their knickers in a twist because the ROC is a living example of a successful Asian democracy. And wildly successful economically to boot.

53

Ah, shucks!

Thanks, guys! :blush:

54

The PRC doesn’t give a hoot that Taiwan is run democratically (or any other way it could be run). Nor does it give a hoot that Hong Kongers have press and other freedoms. The theory that “PRC fears the example of democracy” is as idiotic as the theory that “Arabs hate Americans’ (having their) freedom.”

The PRC doesn’t fear examples of democracy – after all they’ve been around. The PRC maintains it has its own version suitable only for the mainland. That’s the whole reason the PRC comes up with these 1 country X systems: you have your whatever system, I still have my system. It’s as much to keep the mainland out of HK (or Taiwan) as it is to keep them out of the mainland.

55

[quote=“STOP_Ma”][quote=“cctang”][quote=“STOP_Ma”]
With his decision, he has:

  1. Pissed off China, in a predictable way – which will rally and bring focus to the DPP base. [/quote][/quote][/quote]

While I disagree with your overall conculsion STOP_Ma, I think you made a good point about the real goal here - piss off China.

Now why would CSB want to piss off China? And why now? It wouldn’t have anything to do with the Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) scandal would it? I’d say it’s all just a bit too convenient…

56

[quote=“STOP_Ma”]Hey, AC – Is Voice of America.com a good enough a source for you?

[quote]At a news briefing here, State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli said the U.S. reading is that the council had been frozen not abolished and said that in the same announcement Mr. Chen reaffirmed his commitment to uphold the status quo with China:

“I would note today that President Chen reaffirmed his continuing commitment to the pledges he made in his 2000 inaugural address not to change the status-quo across the straits, and we continue to stress the need for Beijing to open a dialogue with the elected leadership in Taiwan,” said Adam Ereli. “On the question of the National Unification Council, it is our understanding that President Chen did not abolish it, and he reaffirmed Taiwan’s commitment to the status-quo. We attach great importance to that commitment.” [/quote]

English.chosun.com/w21data/html/ … 80003.html[/quote]

Basically this is America admitting they didn’t have full control of the development on ROC and another stern warning to CSB to not rock the boat.

What is somewhat laughable is CSB thinks he can leverage the USA to force PRC to talk to him. So it is in my final analysis that this was a move to create the CSB legacy. Lien Chan has his legacy secured in the history books already as the man who broke the Cold War divide between the ROC and the PRC.

Seems like CSB doesn’t care if his legacy is that he restarted the war with the PRC or if he the first TI president to change the DPP charter to a non-independence platform. Because that’s the only way I see PRC extending an invitation to him. But it looks more like CSB is interested in doing the former.

57

The USA and the PRC have no control over the elected government in Taiwan. You even proclaim that the government has the right to do as it pleases in other posts so why shouldn’t they do so here as well???

There was no stern warning over a dead rubber stamp that the NUC was.

58

Please then explain why the DPP should not follow in the footsteps of the KMT???

59

Sorry, you are contradicting yourself. By pointing to a future event when Taiwan will be unified with mainland China, the NUC and the NUG indicate that the current status of Taiwan remains on the table?

This makes no sense. The NUC makes the assumption that Taiwan will be unified with ml China. So, by this assumption, “the current status of Taiwan” is that it is destined to be unified with the mainland in one way or another, regardless of what is the current reality. So if Taiwan is to be unified with ml China, then there is no flexibility on the ultimite status of Taiwan. I have misinterpreted nothing.[/quote]

Sorry, TomTom I see no logical inconsistency in my argument. Taiwan’s maintenance of a long-term nation end-goal (be it unification, independence or implosion), which the island currently falls substantially short of, renders the current political status of the place indeterminant. This just strikes me as obvious. The character of the end-goal is really beside the point - though IMHO the impossible criteria for unification contained within the NUGs would seem to enhance rather than detract from the present state of flux. As the lack of a final decision on Taiwan’s present political situation is a defining feature of the status quo (no-one has argued with me on this point yet - I find this strange), then having the NUC and NUGs are status-quo affirming. On the other hand, dumping the NUC and Guidelines suggests the national end-game is up, and the place is now closer to an independent state - which is what the deep greens and possibly Chen seem to actually want.

So what would I have done with the NUC - given that I am making a case here for the status quo? Another poster (Zeugmite?) suggested turning the NUC into a National Independence Council. I like this idea very much. For the sake of a balanced representation of options, however, I’d prefer to call it something like the Council on Taiwan’s Future (CoTF :smiley: ), and include a set of binding criteria for any final decision on the political status of Taiwan (a rounder set of NUGs, if you like). That would keep Taiwan’s options open for all possible outcomes, and IMHO reinforce the idea that Taiwan’s current political status remains an open question.

60

comfortably numb,

I never claim either the USA or PRC had full control over every aspect of ROC government. But the ROC is in USA sphere of influence. Being as such it is usually acknowledged the USA has the lead in all key diplomatic foreign policy the ROC may have.

It is usually the emotional and amateurish response of some Taiwan’s political figures to state something along the line “ROC/Taiwan already independent.”
Although my views are not the same as Hartzell, that the ROC is still under the USMG. I do share a common thought that ROC is under the USA sphere of influence. It was an almost exclusive sphere until the last 15 years when cross strait interaction started up again.

It is also in my opinion that a stable Status Quo hinged upon the various interpretation “One China” each of the 3 sides had. The NUC and NUG were integral to ROC participation in diplomatic game of maintaining status quo. Since status quo can be maintained for almost indefinitely just by leaving unification as an open option with the PRC. Obviously no one has tried to maintain Status Quo indefinitely by taking possibility of “eventual unification” off the table yet. Personally I don’t think it is possible for more than a 5 years without “non-peaceful” consequences precipitating.

Comments from the USA and PRC have illustrated that the ROC doesn’t have the lead in either disengaging from the PRC or redefining Status Quo to something more TI palatable.

The short answer is that the DPP as it is today doesn’t have the individuals with the experience or a deep enough talent pool to do things the way the KMT did. Maybe 50 years from now. But not today.

guangtou,

Although we have a different shades of grey in our political views on Taiwan. I could not agree with you more at this point. Something needs to put in place of NUC to show that Taiwan did not disengage unilaterally from Status Quo. If a less offense name and a less defined guideline are needed to assuage TI pride, which both the USA and PRC can accept, then it would be a positive move.