Taiwan and South Korea, the two sibling states of East Asia, have long held contempt for each other even before the two broke off diplomatic relations. Despite deliberate efforts to ignore one another, they cannot help but observe each other in secret -- while learning and borrowing ideas. As a result, each brings its own influence to bear.
For example, South Korea's resumption of popular presidential elections in 1987 served as a good role model for Taiwan, prompting it to implement similar elections for the first time in 1996. In 1994, the election of Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) into the Taipei mayoral seat gave Seoul much inspiration. The following year, Seoul also elected the opposition's Cho Soon as mayor. Near the end of 1997, Kim Dae-jung was elected president, transferring power in South Korea into the hands of the opposition for the first time. That election similarly served as an impetus to the election of the DPP's Chen into the presidency in Taiwan in 2000.
The two countries definitely influence each other, but their understanding of each other is often superficial, not to mention that, after the severing of diplomatic ties between the two countries, many unresolved matters between them (such as the resumption of air links and the trade deficit issues) have been left hanging. Of course, this is because these issues were never at the top of the countries' priority lists at the same time.
As result of this indifference, the two sides often make erroneous comparisons. For example, when the two Koreas held their first summit meeting in June 2000, the pro-unification camp of Taiwan became extremely excited. They compared the example of South and North Korea with the cross-strait situation. They then went on to blame the government for the cross-strait impasse. Around the time of June's World Cup, the Taiwan media also contrasted Taiwan with South Korea -- the center of the world's attention at the time -- to satirize Taiwan.
During this presidential election in South Korea, the same thing has happened again. Both the pan-blue and pan-green have different expectations and viewpoints about the election. When it is all over, the two camps will each interpret the results of the election whichever way will best fit their needs.
How should we view the South Korean presidential elections, which will see Roh Moo-hyun of the pro-government Millennium Democratic Party battle it out with the conservative Lee Hoi-chang of the opposition Grand National Party to succeed Kim who must, by law, step down after his single five-year term? The following is a list of points that will interest Taiwanese.
First, can the successful integration within the ruling camp between Roh and Chung Mong-joon, who was the South Korean president of FIFA during the country's phenomenally successful World Cup run, inspire the successful integration of Taiwan's pan-blue camp?
The integration of political camps is necessarily dependent on the following: first, the trade-off of political or economic interests; secondly, one has something the other one needs.
The integration of Roh's and Chung's camps last month is almost a replica of the integration of the Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-pil camps five years ago. In other words, it is the integration of the radical and conservative camps from the opposite end of the spectrum. It would be comparable to the integration of the DPP's "New Wave" faction and the New Party. Koreans can work out this kind of partnership between the two ends of the extremes. It is unlikely that Taiwan can do the same.
After Roh's and Chung's camps integrated, their partnership was criticized as "having one party providing the man, and the other party the policies."
They are likely to be bedfellows only for a short interim period. When either feels that the other no long has any value to him, they will go their separate ways.
And while we are talking about having something that is of value to another, the founder of the Hyundai Group Chung Ju-yung donated US$500 million to North Korea to help Kim Dae-jung make the Korean summit possible, and make his dream of winning the Nobel Peace Prize a reality. When the newly elected government begins to retread old grudges, it is hard to say whether the donation will not become grounds to attack Chung Mong-joon.
On the other hand, as a result of Roh's appeal for the eradication of hatred between factions based in different geographical regions, he became the first post-war political figure in South Korea to be accepted by both the Kyongsang Provinces (Silla) and Cholla Provinces (Paekche) factions. Can such a "middle way" be of any inspiration to the ethnic rivalry in Taiwan?
The inter-region hatred between South Koreans is much worse than the ethnicity complex in Taiwan.
It has gotten to the point that people of Kyongsang Provinces and Cholla Provinces do not marry each other. As a native of Pusan, Roh is playing the role of a pioneer in resolving the regional hatred and trying to pull the two ends of spectrum together. Isn't this another type of "integration" as well?
Third, the division of South and North Korea was the doing of the world superpowers. It is different from the way the two sides of the Taiwan Strait were divided as a result of a civil war. Therefore, the current status of division and any potential unification are in no way incomparable.
South Korea is in a worse situation than Taiwan. For the past 50 years, the US has stationed troops in South Korea, provoking strong anti-US sentiment in South Korea. Heightened Korean nationalism has gotten to the point where virtually everyone in Korea resents the US. Plus, after democratization in 1988, censorship of speeches about North Korea has been eliminated entirely, allowing leftist ideology in South Korean society to increase. By now, virtually the entire country leans toward the left.
The US troops stationed in South Korea are there to protect South Korea from North Korea. But, today, the South Korean people see them as "roadblocks to unification."
Unlike South Korea, Taiwan does not have strong anti-US sentiment. Leftist unification supporters are an extremely small minority. Therefore, the situation in Taiwan is completely different, and should not be compared with that of South Korea.
Fourth, if one is forced to draw analogies, then Lee Hoi-chang would be akin to KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and Roh Moo-hyun would be akin to President Chen. But this kind of comparison just somehow seems misleading.
The similarities between Lee and Lien are that they are both in the opposition and were both defeated in past elections. The difference is that Lee is a tough conservative, while Lien is conservative but not very tough.
The comparison between Chen and Roh is even more interesting. Despite both belonging to the ruling party, the reform camp and the post-war generation, they are virtual opposites of each other. Roh is a radical leftist, while Chen is a moderate independence supporter. Roh is close to the North Korean communist regime, while Chen is anti-communist.
If Roh is elected, there will be endless friction between the US and South Korea, which is something not necessarily good for either Taiwan or East Asia.
It would not be practical for the pan-green camp of Taiwan to place their bets on Roh.
The development of Taiwan and South Korea reflects many similarities, which have often prompted the international community to make comparisons. But, the two are different in their histories, cultures, values and interests. Extreme caution is required when making any comparisons between the two. One must not make wrong analogies based on superficial similarities.
Rick Chu (
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS