A common theme in news reports about Chen Shui-bian recently has been his plans to change the country’s name to ‘Taiwan’ (from the current official name ‘Republic of China’). [See here for a recent example, translated by ESWN – and Michael Turton’s rebuttal]
So, does he really plan to change the name? Or are the journalists just making stuff up?
Promises, Promises
The first point to make is that Chen has repeatedly promised not to change the country’s name. On his inauguration in 2000, he said:
Therefore, as long as the CCP regime has no intention to use military force against Taiwan, I pledge that during my term in office, I will not declare independence, I will not change the national title, I will not push forth the inclusion of the so-called “state-to-state” description in the Constitution, and I will not promote a referendum to change the status quo in regard to the question of independence or unification. Furthermore, there is no question of abolishing the Guidelines for National Unification and the National Unification Council.
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.
In addition to this, he said this about constitutional reform in a Japanese newspaper interview in March:
We also affirm that any sovereignty issue that strays from constitutional proceedings not only fails to contribute to maintaining the status quo, but also should be disregarded.
So, it looks like he’s promised not to change the name.
A man with ideals
Unfortunately, very little is black and white with Chen. In the same (June 20th) speech where he promised not to change the name he also spoke of his goal to rename the country Taiwan:
Taiwan of course is our best possible name, most forceful name, most beautiful name. I have not changed my opinion about this in the least. In our dealings with countries with which we have formal diplomatic relations, we use the Republic of China, followed by Taiwan in parentheses. All of our joint communiques denote our country in that way; otherwise, people would really get mixed up.
Therefore, we hope that these issues can be considered. What could be wrong with that? We need a timely relevant, and viable new Constitution for Taiwan. The differing views people have on this matter are all open to discussion. But this is a goal, an ideal. What can be wrong with that?
Of course, I know that changing the name of the nation is a very difficult matter. But inasmuch as some of our people advocate doing so, we should respect their views. Until such time as a change is made, we are still the Republic of China, and we must display the ROC flag internationally. Wherever I go, I take the ROC flag with me and sing the ROC national anthem.
So, he’s promised not to change the name, he doesn’t think that sovereignty issues should be part of constitutional reform … but he’s happy for the issue of Taiwan’s name to be considered in any new ‘Constitution of Taiwan’.
The President’s power
At this point, there’s an important procedural point that should be made:
The president has absolutely no control over constitutional reform.
Any constitutional amendment must be proposed by the Legislature, voted on by the Legislature, and put to a referendum. The president has zero involvement in this process. Chen Shui-bian has as much control over this process as any of the other ~16 Million Taiwanese voters.
So, as President, Chen can do nothing but talk about consitutional reform and name changes. Of course, his position of influence inside the DPP gives him some control – but it’s debatable whether he’s got any more influence than other senior DPP figures, and he’s definitely got less power in this regard than KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou.
So, in summary:
- He would clearly like to change the name (and has publicly said so), but
- He’s promised not to, and
- He has no power to do so anyway, and
- Even if he could convince the DPP legislators to propose a name change it would be trivial for the KMT/PFP to block it
Pingback: The View from Taiwan
Pingback: Formosa Ambassadors
Pingback: Blogger: Post a Comment
Perfectamundo.
You are good. Very good.
5. even if it is trivial and leads to nowhere, he may want to be remembered as the first one to try this.
David, I mostly agree with this post, but I’m a bit disappointed with the style.
You wrote:
– – –
However, his move to effectively abolish the NUC called into question these promises.
– – –
The pan-blues want you to call the promises into question, but as you know, the promises were all based on the precondition of China giving up its threats against Taiwan. Remember, too, the careful wording used in shelving the NUC/G which will allow the KMT to get the stink all over themselves if they ever regain the presidency and decide to take the rotten corpse out of the freezer.
To restate your conclusion a bit more forcefully (which would also have been nice to see much higher up the page), President Chen is simply demonstrating that he’s not a dictator and knows that he doesn’t have the right to make the decision on his own. It’s clear to me that his personal desires and what’s constitutional are entirely separate things. “It’s up to the people.”
IMHO, it is as clear as “black and white.”
Therefore, my own conclusion would tell the readers that those who are crying that “Chen is going to change Taiwan’s name” are merely trying to paint him as a dictator in order to justify their own anti-democratic leanings, they’re twisting the facts in order to do it, and that they want everyone to focus on Chen instead of the real troublemakers: the pan-blues and their veritable left hand, the media.
Please go back to my February/March 2006 archives to read how I blasted the media’s so-awful-it’s-evil coverage of the NUC/G and related issues in real time.
Sun Bin – yeah that’s a possibility (although you could say he’s been beaten to the punch by LTH there). I have no problem with people speculating that he might push for a constitution with ‘the Republic of Taiwan’ in it. I could see that happening (I’d call him an idiot for doing so, but it’s certainly possible).
My point is that all those ‘analysts’ and (sad excuses for) journalists who take it as fact either don’t have a clue what they’re talking about, are deliberately trying to be misleading, or are engaging in pure speculation.
Tim,
I think we had this argument at the time of the NUC ceasation – I don’t buy it. Go and read his recent promise to the US that I quoted above:
The “four noes” I mentioned in 2000 would remain unchanged as long as China has no intention to use force against Taiwan
4 noes? What happened to the bit after that about the NUC? Slipped his mind?
a) If he’s claiming that he abolished the NUC because China does intend to use force, then why is he still talking about a conditional 4 noes to the US. It makes no sense.
b) If he’s claiming that ‘cease to exist’ is not the same as ‘abolish’ then why isn’t he saying that his ‘4noes + 1without’ remain unchanged? Again, it makes no sense.
Even if I give him the benefit of the doubt, all I could say is that he got off on a technicality. That might be fine for a lawyer, but as a president making promises to his people, it’s not acceptable.
I agree that attempts to paint Chen as a dictator are laughable, and that the reaction to the NUC was over the top – but I also think that Chen’s actions over the NUC were idiotic, unnecessary, unhelpful, tactically stupid, and (at least) broke the spirit of his inauguration promises.
speaking about speculation…
http://www.ettoday.com/2006/07/21/91-1969040.htm
what are his “unfinished mission(s) (完成未竟使命)”? something that another DPP member (annette lu) would not be able to accomplish…
The “four noes” I mentioned in 2000 would remain unchanged as long as China has no intention to use force against Taiwan.
— President Chen
Intention signifies a course of action that one proposes to follow. What would any rational person consider is the intention of mobilizing around 700 ballistic missiles targeting various parts of Taiwan?
Preparations for China’s version of the “bee hive” bottle rockets fireworks display? A new concept in resort living? Every bungalow has its own missile!
Oh, I know, they are getting ready to shoot that pesky wabbit on the moon!
What the fuck do you think they are for? The condition exists for a name change on the strength of this alone.
Unless you think the missiles are for defensive purposes in case the regegade province of Taiwan launches a surprise attack to take the mainland…hahahahahahaha!!!
Pingback: Politics from Taiwan » Constitutional change and independence