02.28.06
The NUC ‘ceases to function’
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 …”
STOP_George said,
February 28, 2006 at 12:52 am
.
.
.
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!
.
.
.
Jason said,
February 28, 2006 at 1:35 am
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.
Michael Turton said,
February 28, 2006 at 7:10 am
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
sun bin said,
February 28, 2006 at 10:55 am
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.
sun bin said,
February 28, 2006 at 10:57 am
….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.
sun bin said,
February 28, 2006 at 10:57 am
CCP (not CCO)
STOP_George said,
February 28, 2006 at 11:02 am
.
.
.
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.
.
.
.
James said,
February 28, 2006 at 11:06 am
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.
James said,
February 28, 2006 at 11:07 am
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.
STOP_George said,
February 28, 2006 at 11:22 am
.
.
.
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.
Sun Bin said,
February 28, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Enough has been said about CSB’s announcemnet yesterday, that the NUC will “cease to function”, and NUG “cease to apply”. The move is a symbolic one which does not yield to any change in reality. In fact, asjujuflop pointed out, it is even a ‘reversible’ one. The controversy generated is the concern that CSB’s move to ‘creeping independence’, which even the Bush administration does not “approve”. The most valid attack on CSB is that he broke his promise of “4 No’s and 1
STOP_George said,
February 28, 2006 at 2:22 pm
.
.
.
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!
.
.
.
.
.
.
STOP_George said,
March 1, 2006 at 2:04 am
.
.
.
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”.
.
.
.
Wandering to Tamshui said,
March 1, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Apologies for the long-ish silence. Work has been a beast these past few days and really, what’s there to say that hasn’t already been (often brilliantly) said by the Turtons, Maddogs,Jujuflops, and Keatings of the Taiwan Blogosphere? I’ll try to bang out something of questionable value (”Shyah,” you say, “what else is new?”) sometime this week. Since I wouldn’t dare leave y’all with blue balls in the meantime, here’s an
MeiZhongTai said,
March 3, 2006 at 2:44 pm
the two most powerful nations in the world. What do have for it? Anything concrete? Maybe for an encore, Chen can personally call the heads of the Hong Kong triads and tell them their wives are ugly and their children are stupid too.David’s (Jujuflop)”The NUC ‘Ceases to Function’”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
sun bin said,
March 3, 2006 at 8:36 pm
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
David said,
March 3, 2006 at 11:29 pm
I get flashbacks to being called into the headmaster’s office to explain myself with that
Politics from Taiwan » Does Chen Shui-bian want to change the country’s name? said,
July 21, 2006 at 6:02 pm
[...] He also reaffirmed these promises in his 2004 inauguration. However, his move to effectively abolish the NUC called into question these promises. Since then he has reaffirmed the remaining promises - here is what he said on June 20th in his ‘report to the people’: On June 8, I told Raymond Burghardt, Chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan, that the “four noes” I mentioned in 2000 would remain unchanged as long as China has no intention to use force against Taiwan. I reiterated the “four noes,” and the United States welcomed my statement. That is all. [...]