As has been expected for some time President Chen Shui-bian today announced the abolishment of the National Unification Council and Guidelines … or did he? Here’s what he said:
The National Unification Council will cease to function. No budget will be earmarked for it, and its personnel must return to their original posts. The National Unification Guidelines will cease to apply. In accordance with procedures, this decision will be transmitted to the Executive Yuan for notice.
So does ‘cease to function’ mean that it’s been abolished? Or did it cease to function back in 2000? The answer to both these contradictary questions is probably ‘yes’. Perhaps Chen has decided that if the US is going to base their Taiwan-China policies on ‘strategic ambiguity’, then there’s no reason why Taiwan can’t either.
Perhaps the acid test for whether this is actually an abolishment of the council lies not with Chen Shui-bian, but with his successor. The wording of this statement seems to leave room for the next president to ‘resume the function’ of the NUC and the associated guidelines. But would Ma Ying-jeou feel comfortable doing that, given his public statements about letting the people decide about unification or reunification?
Clearly Chen has chosen the wording on this statement carefully. He’s avoided clearly ‘abolishing’ the council to make some concessions to the US, and to give his supporters some wiggle-room to argue as to whether this is a real change or not. If Chen can spin this as a non-event which the pan-Blues are overreacting to (I’ve already heard one legislator call him ‘Osama bin Laden’ and of course the move to recall him is in full swing), then he may yet come out ahead.
Whatever the reasons behind Chen’s move, it remind me less of Machiavelli and more of Baldrick’s “I have a cunning plan …”
Pingback: MeiZhongTai
Pingback: Wandering to Tamshui
Pingback: Sun Bin
.
.
.
Interesting interpretation, David!
Perhaps after seeing Ma’s performance on BBC the other night, he feels even more confident that this will trip them up quite a bit.
This should be interesting!
.
.
.
Yeah, I noticed the change in wording, too. I think the timing is important here, too.
Perhaps the key to shutting the blues down over this is to draw a conrete link between the Bad Old Days of the KMT (Happy 228, Chairman Ma!) and the current need for government reform. This puts the KMT on the defensive on two fronts, forcing it to confront its past misdeeds on the anniversary of the Feb. 28 incident while highlighting its opposition to something the Taiwanese public favors.
The issue isn’t how the Taiwanese public understands it, but how the US understands it. The clever wording is aimed at the US. The international media are presenting it as a slap in the face of China and the US.
If Chen can spin this as a non-event which the pan-Blues are overreacting to (I’ve already heard one legislator call him ‘Osama bin Laden’ and of course the move to recall him is in full swing), then he may yet come out ahead.
It IS a non-event to which the Blues are overreacting. But risking your Presidency to get a cheap one-up on the opposition in an election off year is not what anyone would call smart. If Chen wins there is no concrete benefit to himself or Taiwan, as far as I can see. We merely have the status quo restored.
Michael
It is not diffult to deflect the 228 pressure, as Ma smartly did (and correctly).
He agrees to lowering the flag for 228 and said it hurts everybody (it indeed hurt KMT itself as well).
So you see, despite the apparent complexity, there are very simple and easy solution to many of the problems faced by each party in Taiwan (and also across the strait). it is whether one chooses to face with it honestly or not.
….DPP chose not to, CCO chose not to, ironically it is the once (and perhaps still) corrupted and incompetent KMT that is first be realize being sensible is the winning move.
CCP (not CCO)
.
.
.
So you see, despite the apparent complexity, there are very simple and easy solution to many of the problems faced by each party in Taiwan (and also across the strait). it is whether one chooses to face with it honestly or not.
sun bin:
And Ma chooses to be dishonest.
.
.
.
I thought I saw something on the news that said that there is no “abolish” in the Taiwanese legal system, so in effect, what they did was end the law. It was enacted by executive order so if a future president wanted to enact a new one, he could do so. In other words, from the perspective of what you’d have to do to resurrect this law, there is nothing that changed–it was created by executive order, it was “ceased” by executive order, and the future reenactment of it relies on executive order.
Sorry that was unclear. I mean from the perspective of what you’d have to do to reenact the NUC, it is indistinguishable from “abolishing it”, if this legal procedure actually exists in Taiwan.
.
.
.
Here’s another sign that Chen is spinning a web around Ma. From The Guardian:
Hmm…Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah! From Ma’s statement’s last week on the BBC.
.
.
.
David:
As it turns out — You are bang-on! I mean 100% bang-on.
– A compromise was struck with the U.S.
– Ma and the rest of the Chicken-Littles have taken the bait.
Well done!
I can’t wait for someone to press Ma on this issue by asking him,”Will you re-establish the NUC if you become president?”
LOL!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You know, I don’t know if this point has been raised in the whole “status quo” issue, but please consider it and let me know what you think…
It is an idea that contrasts the anti-secession law with the “ceasing the functions” of the NUC.
The anti-secession law legally eliminates the “possibility” that China may, one day, give up on unifying with Taiwan. Before the anti-secession law, there was still that element of a “possibility” for TIers to take comfort in.
And notice how this contrasts with Chen’s move — which DOES NOT legally eliminate the possibility that Taiwan may, one day, unify with China.
I think this is an important distinction to make. When you lay it out like this, it seems fairly clear to me WHO is changing the “status quo”.
.
.
.
it seems that US was able to force CSB to clarify the situation
‘We expect the Taiwan authorities publicly to correct the record and unambiguously affirm that the February 27 announcement did not abolish the National Unification Council, did not change the status quo, and that the assurances remain in effect,’ [Ereli] said.
http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/afx/2006/03/03/afx2567675.html
So much fuss over something so insignificant 🙂
I get flashbacks to being called into the headmaster’s office to explain myself with that 🙂
Pingback: Politics from Taiwan » Does Chen Shui-bian want to change the country’s name?