In the run-up to the German general election in September last year, the ruling party faced a bitter fight due to the nation's economic doldrums and high unemployment rate. But Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder managed to win the election by trumpeting his anti-US stance and opposing US military action against Iraq.
Similarly, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun edged a narrow victory and was elected in December last year by publicizing his anti-US stand.
Is there a market for anti-US sentiments in Taiwan? Can the pan-blue camp emulate the above examples and win the presidential election in March next year? This is an important issue that concerns Taiwan experts both inside and outside Washington. During my visit to Washington from April 3 to April 9, I discussed this topic with them at several functions.
Since mid-March, many legislators from the pan-blue camp have strongly questioned the government's decision to support the US liberation of Iraq. Some even deplored the "ass-kissing" government as a "puppet emperor." Taiwan experts in the US called such comments "irresponsible." Therefore, it is no accident that officials from the American Institute in Taiwan called on some pan-blue lawmakers to correct and "enlighten" them.
The experts in Washington care very much about Taiwan's political situation. They not only have contacts with each party and faction but also have a unique understanding of Taiwan politics. They did not hide their disappointment at the DPP government's poor performance and failure to carry out reforms over the past three years. But they did not put all the blame on the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) government because they know the ruling party does not hold a majority in the legislature. In particular, pan-blue parties often block legislative procedures just for the sake of opposing the government, deliberately hampering its performance.
Will the KMT stage a comeback next year? The US experts had divergent opinions on this question. Some maintain that since the DPP government's performance fell short of their expectations and since the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) are uniting for the upcoming presidential election, the situation is apparently favorable for KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰), and Chen might be branded a one-term president.
Quite a few experts do not see much hope in the alliance forged by KMT's Lien and PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜). According to their analyses, the KMT remains "unchanged" since its defeat in the 2000 presidential election. Its party organization is still in the shape of the Leninist authoritative structure. The KMT leaders seem to be "unrepentant" and are not making any effort to engage in soul-searching or carry out reforms.
With respect to the party-run businesses, which gave rise to black-gold politics, as well as the return of its party assets to the people -- ? two issues that concern the public the most -- the KMT also dodged them in a perfunctory manner. The KMT has become "unattractive" to Taiwanese voters since it is unable to make any changes.
A retired ambassador familiar with Taiwan politics said that Lien has an impressive resume with experience as minister at several ministries, Taiwan provincial governor, premier and vice president, but he could not recall any major accomplishment Lien achieved during his days in office.
He said the independent candidate Soong condemned his rival Lien as a loser in the run-up to the 2000 presidential election. Since Soong utterly despises Lien, how can the two work together in the future? Why is Soong willing to stoop and accept the position of a running mate, or vice president in a future government -- a position that will have no real power?
This retired ambassador predicted that if Soong cannot serve simultaneously as vice president and premier, he might, after being elected, quit the vice president post for the premiership. According to Additional Article 2 of the ROC Constitution promulgated in April 2000, should the office of the vice president become vacant, the president shall nominate a candidate within three months and the Legislative Yuan shall vote to elect a new vice president, who shall serve out the original term until its expiration.
At the KMT's party congress at the end of March, Lien pledged that, if elected next year, he would immediately visit China on a "journey of peace" and push forward direct links with China on the basis of the "1992 consensus." US experts disclosed in 2001 that some KMT members had visited China to ask the Beijing government not to have any contact with Chen's administration.
In spite of their dislike of Chen's "one country on either side [of the Taiwan Strait]" statement on Aug. 3 last year, they felt more uneasy about Lien's and Soong's overly soft stance on Taiwan's sovereignty.
An US expert who has been a long-term observer of Lien and Soong pointed out that both these two pan-blue leaders oppose Chen's "one country on either side" statement and former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) "special state-to-state relations (特殊國與國關係)" stance, and instead champion the "one China" principle and unification with China.
Prior to the 2000 presidential election, the Chinese government issued a white paper entitled "The Principle of One China and the Taiwan Question," intimidating Taiwan with the use of force if the Taiwan authorities refuse negotiations sine die. Lien dared not to say no to China, and, moreover, proposed a "confederation" structure to echo Beijing's unification appeal.
Soong defined the Taiwan-China relations as "quasi-international relations," a move that tries to disarm the ROC's sovereignty. The US expert also recalled Soong once told a Washington Post journalist that he opposed Taiwan's decision to invest in the theater missile defense concept, in an effort to curry favor with Beijing.
If Lien and Soong come to power, what path will they walk? Will the US government "take sides" in Taiwan's presidential election next year? US experts said the US administration will maintain a neutral stance publicly and not interfere in Taiwan's election. But who is the US' real friend? The experts said they already had the answer in mind.
Parris Chang is a DPP legislator.
Translated by Jackie Lin
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS