Ever since Chen Shui-bian proposed hastening the birth of a new "Taiwan constitution" by 2006, "amending the constitution through referendum" has been a hot topic for the coming election. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and other pro-independence forces, under the approving eyes of the US, have been fanning the flames.

Election pressure forced Lien Chan of the opposition to come up with his own version of a constitutional amendment on November 15, which in some respects is similar to Chen's proposition. Since a "referendum on the constitution" approaches the bottom line of "Taiwan independence", cross-Straits tension mounted.

With opposition from the Chinese mainland, the US government and the majority of the Taiwan public, the "Executive Yuan" passed the version authored by the Kuomintang (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) on November 27, which does not completely rule out "the unification-independence clause". The DPP is not satisfied with the result. It has asked that the "Executive Yuan" review the draft or allow a referendum to be held to veto the "referendum law", which was just passed.

The "show" is not over because Chen is still directing it. And he has mapped out all the details of the scheme.

"Constitution by referendum" is a tool the DPP uses to push for "Taiwan independence". The DPP Party Principle is built around it. Chen Shui-bian's "resolution on Taiwan's future" is another variation. To reach the goal, they have identified referendum as the route with the least risk and the best access. Chen's three-step programme involves referendum, constitution, and nation-building. In practice, Chen focuses on the first two steps, leaving Lee Teng-hui to act as a spokesman for the third.

"Constitution by referendum" also serves as a weapon that can be used to attack political opponents and win votes. The DPP has always resorted to it. Every time there is an election, it plays up the image of democracy by touting topics like referendum; and every time the KMT comes out to thwart it and be labelled "anti-democratic, anti-reform and anti-Taiwan". The DPP then gets the laurels as well as the votes. This was a rehash of the old pattern, an attempt to not only rouse support but also divert public attention from its poor job performance. The scheme can also cause internal strife within the Pan-Blue Camp, keep the tags of "selling out Taiwan, opposing reform and democracy" securely on the KMT-PFP candidates and shore up Chen as a leader with vision and tenacity.

Then there is the American factor. Chen believes his scheme will be backed up by the US. He reasons that the improvement of Sino-US relations does not have much substance while US-Taiwan ties are stronger than ever. His trip to the US featured a plethora of breakthroughs such as exposure to the public, openly receiving awards, making public speeches, being interviewed by the media and twice shaking hands with US Colin Powell. Remarks by American Institute in Taiwan Chairwoman Therese Shaheen further solidified Chen's judgment. Chen claimed that he had notified the Americans before publicly advocating his plan in the US, giving the impression that they had acquiesced to it.

More serious than that was the DPP's calculation that it would not induce military action by the mainland but rather create enough tension to stimulate the US to sell more weapons. Therefore, a certain degree of apprehension between the two sides would be in the US' interests, it figured, and since Chen has always touted the slogans of democracy and human rights, the US would be hard put to oppose him either ideologically or in terms of financial benefits. On top of that, Lee Teng-hui would mislead the public by claiming that the US supports "Taiwan independence" and would come to its defence if the situation arose.

On the basis of the above assumptions, Chen Shui-bian reckoned that this was a sure win for him. If his referendum passed, the DPP's dream would come true and it could claim credit for democracy and reform, pushing "Taiwan independence" one step further. It could also simultaneously test US reaction and the mainland's breaking point. If the measure failed, it could shift the blame to the KMT-PFP as well as opposition from the US and pressure from the mainland. The DPP could still score in the minds of party members and drum up support by playing the sympathetic fall guy. Moreover, it will go ahead with a "consultative referendum" on "joining WHO" and two other measures at the time of the March 2004 election.

However, the referendum version passed by the "Legislative Yuan" has blocked several of the DPP's proposals, including "the two-country theory and Taiwan name rectification", while leaving a sovereignty-related "defensive clause" intact. In their interpretations, Taiwan press commentators said that the door for future "unification-independence referendum" has been shut, but that a window is open. The danger of "independence through referendum" has not been completely removed.

As a matter of fact, the damaging aspects of this scheme, which are evident, have been repudiated by the majority of Chinese people, including those on Taiwan.

The biggest impact is its challenge to the one-China principle and international law, which states that Taiwan is an inseparable part of China, a fact widely accepted throughout the world. Taiwan does not have the right to determine its fate through referenda. From the standpoint of international law, referenda apply only to certain situations, such as political revolution, secession from colonialism and UN trust of non-self-governed land. Taiwan does not fall into any of these categories. Without approval from the central government and all Chinese people, a unilateral effort at referendum and independence would be regarded as a rebellion.

Chen's scheme also challenges mainstream public opinion on either side of the Taiwan Straits, regarding the pursuit of peace, stability and development. The DPP's promotion of this scheme has nothing to do with Taiwan people wanting to be the masters of their own fates. Instead, it constitutes a small number of people hijacking public opinion. For example, 70 per cent of the Taiwan public demand direct transport links between the two sides but maintain the status quo on the political front, to which the DPP administration has turned a blind eye. On a higher level, unification, the preservation of sovereignty and territorial integrity at all costs reflect the absolute majority opinion of all Chinese people, which the DPP has totally ignored.

Chen's scheme will rupture the tranquility of the Taiwan Straits and, by extension, the Asia-Pacific region. "Taiwan independence" will surely lead to war. Any challenge to China's sovereignty will be met with countermeasures from the mainland, which include military action. Just as most of the world is focused on economic growth and the protection of peace, the Chinese Government is no exception. Stirring up trouble in the Taiwan Straits by edging towards independence will bring uncertainty and disaster, which all peace-loving people would hate to see.

Finally, a "referendum for independence" is a violation of the principle of democracy. Chen Shui-bian's action does not accord to democracy because it embodies the opinions of only a handful of people on the island and their attempt to shape Taiwan's future. The process is neither democratic nor rational. As we know, democracy is a process of proposing, consultation and compromise and the result is rational. Chen's insistence on "referendum" showed no respect for other opinions and no sincerity in playing the political game. He promised upon election that he would not seek to "change the national flag, song, title or put the two-country theory in the constitution", but now he has gone back on his own words, proving he is not a man of integrity.

For all the glossy pretense, Chen Shui-bian's flag-waving for "referendum and constitution amendment" was intended for an independent Taiwan. It is a siren song that will lure Taiwan people to catastrophe; it is a means to use political opponents as human shields and public interests as bets in its high-risk gamble.

All pro-independence forces should be warned that a miscalculation of public opinion and the Chinese people's determination will amount to courting self-ruin.

The author Zhang Lihong is deputy director of the Institute of Taiwan Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

(China Daily HK Edition December 3, 2003)