America's Position on DPP Hiding in Two-Nation Theory
In an April 3 congressional hearing, Daniel Russel, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, expressed hope that Taiwanese students and citizens opposing the cross-strait service trade agreement can avoid both coercion and violence. Although the United States did not explicitly declare whether it supports the cross-strait service trade agreement, Russel said that the United States welcomes and appreciates the Ma government’s progress in promoting cross-strait relations.
This is reminiscent of what David Brown, director of the American Institute in Taiwan, said recently in The Nelson Report: the United States “would not permit such obstruction to occur in the Congress,” and, directly attacking the Democratic Public Party, it "would not view the DPP's obstruction tactics as legitimate democratic action." Later, in response to the DPP’s request for clarification, the U.S. State Department Bureau of East Asia referred to Brown's comments as personal opinions. But Brown, as the director of AIT for 10 years, has a manner of speaking that definitely reveals a policy direction, as if a subtle warning from the United States. On top of that is Russel’s clear explanation yesterday reflecting America’s concern about loss of control.
The U.S. is concerned not about street unrest but the DPP taking an opportunity to steal into the Two-Nation Theory. The students demanded to first examine the people’s version of the cross-strait agreement. The DPP version states that a “cross-strait agreement” is a written document signed between the government of the Republic of China [Taiwan] and the government of the People's Republic of China. As Premier Jiang Yi-huah stated, this is changing the country’s approval and position, turning the so-called “Two-Nation Theory” into a law. Apparently, the student movement has already started to change the direction of the constitutional system.
Taiwan's democracy opens discussion for all kinds of political issues. Therefore, advocating for independence or the Two-Nation Theory protects freedom of speech, but to make policies or laws out of them, they must undergo proper procedures. Whether by legislation, constitutional amendment, referendum, or even voting to elect a president, there is now a legal procedure available, but do students not have the final say? The DPP hides behind these students to sneak into the Two-Nation Theory. Do Su Tseng-chang or Tsai Ing-wen really plan to use this strategy in the presidential election?
The cross-strait service trade protest was sloppy; the movement expresses control over the government, and requires procedures for intentions of justice. But now, the people’s version, as well as this sneaking into the Two-Nation Theory, are nothing different from overthrowing the constitutional system — what kind of direct democracy is this? That year when Lee Teng-hui ignited the missile crisis, China-Taiwan relations were tense, and the U.S. dispatched warships. This time, frankly, the Taiwanese need to use freedom responsibly. Are the students and DPP prepared to face the consequences for their behavior?
This is reminiscent of what David Brown, director of the American Institute in Taiwan, said recently in The Nelson Report: the United States “would not permit such obstruction to occur in the Congress,” and, directly attacking the Democratic Public Party, it "would not view the DPP's obstruction tactics as legitimate democratic action." Later, in response to the DPP’s request for clarification, the U.S. State Department Bureau of East Asia referred to Brown's comments as personal opinions. But Brown, as the director of AIT for 10 years, has a manner of speaking that definitely reveals a policy direction, as if a subtle warning from the United States. On top of that is Russel’s clear explanation yesterday reflecting America’s concern about loss of control.
The U.S. is concerned not about street unrest but the DPP taking an opportunity to steal into the Two-Nation Theory. The students demanded to first examine the people’s version of the cross-strait agreement. The DPP version states that a “cross-strait agreement” is a written document signed between the government of the Republic of China [Taiwan] and the government of the People's Republic of China. As Premier Jiang Yi-huah stated, this is changing the country’s approval and position, turning the so-called “Two-Nation Theory” into a law. Apparently, the student movement has already started to change the direction of the constitutional system.
Taiwan's democracy opens discussion for all kinds of political issues. Therefore, advocating for independence or the Two-Nation Theory protects freedom of speech, but to make policies or laws out of them, they must undergo proper procedures. Whether by legislation, constitutional amendment, referendum, or even voting to elect a president, there is now a legal procedure available, but do students not have the final say? The DPP hides behind these students to sneak into the Two-Nation Theory. Do Su Tseng-chang or Tsai Ing-wen really plan to use this strategy in the presidential election?
The cross-strait service trade protest was sloppy; the movement expresses control over the government, and requires procedures for intentions of justice. But now, the people’s version, as well as this sneaking into the Two-Nation Theory, are nothing different from overthrowing the constitutional system — what kind of direct democracy is this? That year when Lee Teng-hui ignited the missile crisis, China-Taiwan relations were tense, and the U.S. dispatched warships. This time, frankly, the Taiwanese need to use freedom responsibly. Are the students and DPP prepared to face the consequences for their behavior?
Previous article![]( "Why Russia Isn't Afraid of US Gas Exports")
