CSB: Time to "consider" territory change? (Here we go again)

Politics Taiwan Politics
1

From the news:

民進黨在週日舉行憲改的研討會，陳水扁總統致詞
時，以現行憲法有關領土範圍為例，指憲法的規定與現
實狀況完全脫節或背離時，基於對憲法正當性與合理性
要求，對轉型正義的期待與堅持，是不是該認真思考，
「予以必要的處理」？

The DPP held the Constitution Reform Meeting this past Sunday. During CSB’s remarks, he used the example of the ROC territory as prescribed in the Constitution-in-use to point out that, when the Constitution’s prescription and realistic condition are completely misaligned or in opposition, then based on the requirement on the Constitution’s legitimacy and rationality, and based on the anticipation of and persistence in seeking justice in transformation, shouldn’t it be seriously considered to “dispose of it in whatever way necessary”?

…他接著強調，美國非常嚴肅看待陳總統數度重申「不同意
憲改過程觸及主權議題，其中包括領土定義」的承諾。…

The spokesman of the State Department notes the US takes seriously CSB’s repeated promises to “not let the constitution reform process touch on questions of sovereignty, which includes the definition of territory.” It goes on to quote that keeping those promises is a test of CSB’s ability to act out his duties, that the US is serious about this and will watch him.

會後美國國務院資深官員向媒體補充背景，有記者
表示，台灣官方聲言有關主權與領土的議題將只是一個
辯論過程，不致成為共識也不可能通過，這位資深官員
則反問，若只是辯論，「為何要將其處理成為一個修憲
提案」？他直言，陳總統既然做出承諾，就請依照承諾
的方向實現。

Some reporters said the official stance of the Taiwan administration is that bringing up issues of sovereignty and territory is merely a process of debate, and won’t become concensus and nothing will come of it (i.e. the LY will not pass it, i.e. it’s just political show for internal consumption). A State Department official said on background that if this was just for debate, then why submit it as one of the Constitution proposals? He said Chen should keep his promises once he has made them.

[quote=“State Department, 9/25”]QUESTION: Thank-you, Tom. Taiwan’s leader Chen Shui-bian vowed yesterday to dramatically amend the constitution to reflect what he says the changes in Taiwan’s status – the proposed amendments making sure the definition of Taiwan’s territory and official name. I’m just wondering is the U.S. concerned by Chen’s move to unilaterally change the status quo.

MR. CASEY: Well, first of all, let me just reiterate that the United States does not support independence for Taiwan and we continue to be opposed to unilateral changes in the status quo by either side. We also take very seriously President Chen’s repeated commitments not to permit the constitutional reform process to touch on sovereignty issues, which includes territorial definition. And the fulfillment of President Chen’s commitments is a test of his leadership as well as his ability to protect Taiwan’s interests, its relations with others and to maintain peace and stability in the Straits.

So I think that’s basically where we are on this issue. We again know about his commitments that he’s repeatedly stated on this subject and we expect he would carry out them.

Yeah, let’s go, Mr. Lambros.

QUESTION: One more on Pakistan.

MR. CASEY: Are we still on Taiwan? Okay, sure.

QUESTION: Yeah. Do you find it troubling that, you know, when the leader of a foreign country makes a commitment, sometimes repeated commitment to the United States, and then deviates from that commitment? Do you find it troubling?

MR. CASEY: Well, again as I said, we take his commitment to us very seriously and we expect him to carry out those commitments and we’ll see what happens.[/quote]

Based on the phrasing that looks very much like the beginning of the NUC debacle, I think somebody’s itching for a distraction and would not mind to bet the house. I guess CSB likes more bitch-slapping. He is a masochist.

2

Yep, it’s the NUC issue once again. CSB only knows this one trick, and he’ll keep repeating it as long as he’s in office. I can’t imagine even he himself feels like he accomplished much with the NUC’s “suspension”, so the decision to try the same manuver again just shows his desperation.

3

To prove that he is not the lame duck.

4

I wonder how long will it take before he gets another “hello-hello” reminder from the US again? Like I said many times before, the dude is crashing and burning the Greenies, and everybody is powerless to stop him. Doh. :homer:

5

You all mind enlightening me as to why redefining national boundaries to exclude the PRC and Mongolia is so silly. Seems to me, and any other rational thinker, that the way it reads now is more idiotic. The Constitution is outdated because it hasn’t been allowed to change with the society and its system. I mean, you can’t really beleive that this hybrid Presidential/Parlimentary system is working too well, can you? I would think both sides would want a real discussion on changing the constitution to fit the reality of today and the problems of tomorrow.

6

That would only work if one side gave up TI. So far no one trusts the DPP and their TI agenda to be trustworthy enough to make a constitutional change without angering the Blues, USA or PRC. They have no one to blame but themselves.

If they change the fundamental agenda of their party, perhaps everyone will perceive them as honest brokers for positive change. Till then everyone will obstruct them at every possible turn.

7

[quote=“ac_dropout”]That would only work if one side gave up TI. So far no one trusts the DPP and their TI agenda to be trustworthy enough to make a constitutional change without angering the Blues, USA or PRC. They have no one to blame but themselves.

If they change the fundamental agenda of their party, perhaps everyone will perceive them as honest brokers for positive change. Till then everyone will obstruct them at every possible turn.[/quote]

So…there is nothing wrong with changing the constitution, just if the DPP tries to do it. Why not hold a a sort of “constitutional convention” where Blues and Greens can get together and discuss"positive" change? At the present time, that looks like it is impossible, but as far as I can tell from what Chen is saying, all he really wants is for everyone to just sit down and talk about it. The people don’t want TI now, so any change made now will reflect the will of the people.

8

Looks like President Chen won’t go down without a fight. It seems if he is going to get thrown out of office or step down, he wants to step down for a good damn reason, not for some bullshit about taking responsibility for his family member’s mistakes.

I applaud his choice. Also, who cares if he pisses off the USA now, everyone else is pissed off at him anyway. Really good plan.

9

How do we know CSB is not lying again? Come on after 6 years, I think people have had enough. Enough of his lying and legal games.

If you want the Blues, USA, and PRC to trust CSB again, have him admend the DPP constitution to give up TI. If he can do that, he will have earned his political capital to talk about constitutional change with the Blues.

Words of a selfish inidividual that has no concerns for the welfare of the State.

Reminds me of Vivian Chen at the airport demanding her economy class ticket be upgraded to First Class just because who her father is. Why not just buy a first class ticket? What is with these selfish tantrums in public of getting something for nothing?

Sometimes people do things out of courtesy and sometimes out of obligation. It would be nice for a change if the leadership of Taiwan could figure out which is which for once.

10

Uh, the ones who depend on the USA’s support might care (chief among them TI/ers who hang overtightly on the legs of Uncle Sam). Just a guess.

But TI/ers are a contradictory bunch. Some of them have suggested, in all seriousness, to bomb the US in order to force it to take over Taiwan and establish a Republic of Taiwan. Mmmmm hmmmmm.

11

Oh great Taiwanese homicide bombers in LA with sticky tofu bombs. :laughing:

12

You guys try to label anyone who doesn’t want to be part of Communist China something called a Taiwan Independence advocate. This is a misnomer and politically loaded term since Taiwan is already not a part of China therefore already independent. You guys should all be labeled Communist Invaders, warmongers and the such as you are trying trick people into thinking people who do not want to be Communist, are in fact evil splittists as the CCP calls them, again a misnomer and Communist lie since Taiwan and China have been split for along a long time.

Anyway, Chen has a great plan, let him be the fall guy for change. Stop your warmonger, you sound like all of the people in March 2000 trying to scare everyone into not voting for Chen because China will invade. Stop kowtowing to China.

13

[quote=“ac_dropout”]How do we know CSB is not lying again? Come on after 6 years, I think people have had enough. Enough of his lying and legal games.[/quote] Hahahahaa…you have had enough because you cannot depose him. THe Communists are very frustrated too since you were supposed to get rid of him in 2000 then again in 2004. Hahaha…even before he was elected you were trying to put him down.

Your so called legal games, there is no game with the law, he either did something illegal or he didn’t. Because he understands the law, and you guys like to break it to get what you want, you are frustrated. He is only pointing out the law and you are trying to play the games. Frustrating that you are no longer in a single party rule system huh, can’t have your way any more.

14

Hobart,

You’re right. I have no idea why CSB approval rating is 15% and mobs are demanding his removal from office. You’re intellect is towering, you’re argument so compelling.

I’ll take my satisfaction in watching the pan-Green melt down and in fighting at this time.

15

[quote=“ac_dropout”]Hobart,

You’re right. I have no idea why CSB approval rating is 15% and mobs are demanding his removal from office. You’re intellect is towering, you’re argument so compelling.

I’ll take my satisfaction in watching the pan-Green melt down and in fighting at this time.[/quote]

Indeed, you have no idea since you’re not here and just know from hear say …

16

belgian pie,

Of course when I am in Taiwan, it makes perfect sense to be pan-Green. Once I land in Taiwan, the BSR blood in awakens and I just want to cause physical harm to the first WSR I see. Hanji jia you, Hanji jia you.

Your argument is even more compelling than Hobart’s.

I’m sure when cctang lands in Taiwan with his future spouse, his views will do a 180 as well.

17

Even “hearsay” (if that’s what you want to call the news) is better untranslated and unfiltered, what do you think, belgian pie? lol…

18

When 99% of the press/media is pan-blue, pro-unification and paid under the table by them what do want …

Oh, another thing … compromise and sharing that’s a worth not to found in the pan-blue’s dictionaries …

The greens compromised and shared in the past but what did the blues do? Everytime on of them was assigned the post of premier the blues started to obstruct them … go figure … obstructing your own people from doing a good job …

19

It’s pretty remarkable that you’re more informed than 85% of the Taiwanese public, even with the vast amount of pan-Blue propaganda out there. Towering intellect. You know, whenever I find that my opinions only make sense if I assume I’m far more intelligent than the average man… I start questioning my assumptions.

“Every” time? Just how many Blue members do you think were appointed to the post of premier under the DPP? If this is the quality of information you’ve gathered from being on Taiwan… maybe I should just stay away.

20

I thought the media was ultimately controlled by the Jews and Liberals. Are pan-Blues Jews too?
The conspiracy widens.

The pan-Blue dictionaries are in Chinese. I don’t think there are many English words in there.

Have you thought perhaps the Blues obstruct the Greens is because their proposals are amatuerish and not in the best interest of society on Taiwan. Instead of thinking the Blues are against use because we’re Green, perhaps you should be thinking what did we Greens do wrong to lose popular support. I assure you it has nothing to do with the Jewish, liberal, pan-Blue media conspiracy.