Those of us who have watched the Democratic Progressive Party with sympathy since its funding 17 years ago have learned never to underestimate its ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And overwhelmingly the reason for this has been interpersonal rivalries within the party. Of course all political parties are full of rivalries. But in most there is an understanding that what matters for any party most of all is power. Lose it and you lose everything. In the end, therefore, a compromise has to be reached between the ambitious, in which the interests of the party have to be put first and ambition must take a back seat.
Perhaps it is because the DPP is such a new party that it seems not to understand this. Maybe it is because the party still represents a coming together of disparate people having independent power bases as a result of their status as tang wai activists, rather than a cadre raised by and in the party owing their stature to the party alone and consequently more reluctant to challenge it. Whatever, the mood of fratricide stalking the party over the issue of who is to run as Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) running mate shows the DPP, like the Bourbons, has "learned nothing and forgotten nothing."
Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) wants another four years as vice president. Some in the DPP are opposed to this. The pro-Lu camp has two factions, those who like Lu's outspokenness, and those who think for Chen to choose anyone other than Lu would be to anoint a successor, which for reasons of factional weakness they want to avoid. There are also rumors that Lu is threatening to release a book chronicling the snafus of the Chen administration should she not be chosen, basically blackmailing her way onto the ticket.
Looking at Lu's candidacy from first principles, will it, compared with the other options, enhance or diminish Chen's chances? Evidence from polls suggests the latter.
As to Lu's performance, so much of what she has both done and said recently has been embarrassing balderdash, aimed not at the country or even the party but at some strange vanity project of her own. Hearing Lu speak on international affairs -- which were supposed to be her forte -- has become excruciatingly embarrassing. Her lecture to the military two years ago on Taiwan's "soft power" and "Hello Kitty personality" and the need to become a "cuddly country adored by the international community" showed a deplorable lack of gravitas; nothing she has said since has shown this deficiency to be only temporary. To those who do not thrill to Lu's anti-China drum-banging -- the very voters Chen must carry to win re-election -- Lu has become a joke.
This raises two problems. Unless Chen wins this is likely to be the last democratic presidential election Taiwan holds -- the blue camp now being so completely the tail wagged by China's dog. If Lu is threatening to use her book as a weapon, we have to ask if she is prepared to see the destruction of Taiwan's independence and political and social freedoms just out of a sense of wounded self-esteem?
The second problem is that if not Lu, then who? What is needed, for the good of the party, is a decision process that all can agree on, the results of which all will respect. The real problem is that due to Chen's playing with this topic in hints and suggestions, and arrogating the decision to himself rather than a more democratic process, it is now virtually too late for such a decision to be taken. Once again bad blood and bruised egos might be the undoing of the DPP in an election that is far too important to lose.
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