Commentary: Referendum issue still needs close attention ( 2003-11-28 09:12) (China Daily)
Taiwan's "Legislative Yuan" put to the vote Thursday a bill on referendum.
When the legislature came to vote on the clause concerning "national flag,
national anthem, national title and territorial changes", only 190 members
attended the session, among whom 14 voted for the bill while 175 abstained.
Therefore, the majority of the legislators from the Democratic Progressive Party
(DPP) abstained from voting.
When voting on the milder version put forward by the Kuomintang and the
People First Party, the pan-blue camp, with its overwhelming majority, pulled
through. As a result, the "Administrative Yuan" version was aborted.
The Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) of the State Council warned recently that if
the island's "Legislative Yuan" passed the referendum law that placed no limit
on issues concerning "national flags", "national title" and even "territory", it
would amount to providing legal grounds for Taiwan independence. To that, the
mainland would respond strongly without hesitation, the TAO stressed.
When it comes to national sovereignty and territorial integrity, the Chinese
Government and people do not turn tail, do not compromise and do not give in.
They do not tolerate, do not condone and do not sit by and look on separatist
moves.
Deterred by the stern stance of the Chinese Government and people, the bulk
of the DPP legislators pulled back before it was too late and averted a disaster
for themselves. However, You Shi-kun, premier of the "Executive Yuan", said he
would ask the law-making body to reconsider the bill and put it to another vote
if the final version of the referendum law did not tally with the expectations
of the executive.
Whether the Taiwan authorities will proceed on the road to separation remains
to be seen.
According to the United Nations' Declaration on Granting Independence to
Colonial Countries and Peoples issued in 1960, only colonized countries can
enjoy the right of self-determination and achieve independence via referendum.
Since time immemorial, the island of Taiwan has been part of China and not a
colony.
It is, therefore, not entitled by any international law to stage a referendum
to determine whether it is to become independent or not.
The separatist drive for referendum has overstepped the central government's
limits of tolerance as well as those of 1.3 billion Chinese people. Not one
country in the world would tolerate separatist elements within itself.
For example, in the 19th century, when the southern states of America wanted
to break away from the union to re-form as an independent state through
self-determination, the US Government lost no time in waging war against them,
thereby maintaining national unity.
Preserving national sovereignty and territorial integrity is the top priority
for all countries, and the motherland would not be willing to swallow the bitter
fruit of national separation. The Taiwan authorities must understand this
clearly.
The mainland government recently notified more than 100 countries through its
diplomatic envoys about the severity of the situation on the island and the
mainland government's attitude and determination. Such a move by Beijing has
never been seen before.
The Taiwan authorities should not think erroneously that since the mainland
is facing a critical moment in its economic development and is busily preparing
for the Olympic Games and the World Expo that this constitutes a god-sent
opportunity for them to declare independence. These Taiwan pro-independence
forces should not bark up the wrong tree. Once the island proclaims
independence, all 1.3 billion Chinese will be forced to destroy Taiwan
separatists at any cost, even if it means immense casualties, serious setbacks
for national economic development and giving up the rights to host the Olympic
Games and the World Expo.
Chen Shui-bian is using "democracy", "freedom" and "human rights" as bait to
lure and coerce the islanders into accepting "referendum" for Taiwan
independence. This is equivalent to hijacking Taiwan compatriots to force them
onto the separatist bandwagon. Democracy, freedom and human rights are common
goals sought after by humanity at large, but they must not be degraded to tools
for ambitious, power-thirsty politicians. Nor should they become the pretext for
splitting up the motherland and compromising the interests of Taiwan residents.
Had Taiwan passed the unlimited version of the referendum law, its citizens
would not have found themselves awash in democracy, freedom and human rights.
Instead, such an act would have opened a Pandora's box, letting loose crises,
disasters and war.
Moreover, Chen Shui-bian ought not overestimate the reliability of America's
"protective umbrella" since the US will not risk its own interests by involving
itself in a war for Taiwan separatism.
Washington should uphold its "One China" policy and avoid sending Taiwan
pro-independence forces the wrong signal.
