appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

isVideo

articlePageQuery

article

articleSchemaContent

content

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

appConfig

filter

json

liveArticle

Frank Ching

Question: when is a change not a change? Answer: when the government making the change insists that nothing has changed. This is the situation in Taiwan, where President Chen Shui-bian  did away  with the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines last month.

He had announced during the Lunar New Year that he was thinking of abolishing the council and associated guidelines - which  set out a road map for Taiwan's eventual unification with mainland China.

The council and guidelines were among the things that Mr Chen had promised not to abolish when he became president in 2000.  'Furthermore,  the abolition of the National Unification Council or the National Unification Guidelines will not be an issue,' he said.

He also vowed not to declare independence or  change the island's official name.

Mr Chen made these promises under  pressure from Washington, which did not want a confrontation with Beijing. The mainland has long threatened to attack Taiwan if the island  moves towards formal independence.

In six years, Mr Chen has not called a meeting of the council, which existed only on paper. Still, Washington considered formal abolition a change to the status quo.

After negotiations on the wording,  Mr Chen announced that the council would 'cease to function' and the guidelines would 'cease to apply' - without using the word 'abolish'. He also said Taiwan 'has no intention of changing the status quo'.

Washington agrees that there has been no change in the status quo. But the United States did ask Taipei to confirm that the council had not been abolished -  even though its staff has been reassigned and its nominal budget cancelled.

Why did Mr Chen take these actions when the council and guidelines existed only on paper anyway - especially when doing so risked alienating his main supporter, the United States?

The answer seems to be that the president, with two years of his term left, does not want to be rendered irrelevant. His popularity sank  in December to a  record low of around 10 per cent, and Mr Chen, by taking this action, is regaining the support of hardcore, pro-independence voters.

Mr Chen had spoken previously of a plan to give Taiwan a new constitution, to be approved by a referendum next year  and to come into effect in 2008. It  was denounced by Beijing as a timetable for declaring independence.

In an interview in Japan's Yomiuri newspaper last week,  Mr Chen again spoke of his plans: 'I will drive forward the formulation of a new constitution based on legal procedures that is more suited to Taiwan's present situation,' he said. 'It will be difficult, but not impossible, to formulate a new constitution by 2008.'

The opposition has a slim majority in the island's parliament,  but elections are scheduled for next year. Mr Chen apparently hopes voters will give  his Democratic Progressive Party control over parliament, enabling it to approve a new constitution.

But a big DPP victory is unlikely unless Beijing takes action against Taiwan, triggering a pro-independence vote. It is therefore in Mr Chen's interest to be as provocative as possible. This, too, may be a factor in his recent actions.

Beijing realises that threats could be counterproductive, but feels that it cannot let the Taiwan leader edge ever closer to formal independence. Mainland leaders, therefore, have to walk a narrow line, warning him not to go too far while refraining from being too belligerent.

No doubt, in the next two years, Mr Chen will take additional steps that will make both his enemies in Beijing and his supporters in Washington feel decidedly uncomfortable. And he may well claim, while doing so, that nothing has changed.

Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based writer and commentator



The change that altered 'nothing'