The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has recently seen a rise in public support. Deputy Secretary-General Lee Ying-yuan (
Lee's remarks were somewhat impolite but no less true. Lien has generated news throughout his trip, but most of it has been rather negative.
An example: While in the UK, he reportedly complained that Taiwan's representative office there had given him the cold shoulder. While in the Czech Republic, he wrangled with Chen Shih-meng (
Lien's remarks provoked a backlash and accusations that he was airing the nation's dirty laundry overseas. Even Lien's new cross-strait rhetoric has stirred up big trouble. At a meeting held by the US-China Policy Foundation on Capitol Hill on Oct. 21, Lien pushed the line that "one China" refers to the Republic of China, apparently different to the People's Republic of China.
Lien's remarks convey nothing new, nor can they resolve the real-life problems facing Taiwan. Instead, they have created a new dispute within the blue camp. Lien's position -- that "one China" means the ROC -- has been the KMT's traditional position since the party retreated to Taiwan in 1949. But the ROC lost its right to represent China after losing its UN seat in 1971.
Lien's proposal will not find acceptance in China, Taiwan or anywhere else in the rest of the world. This is why former president Lee Teng-hui (
Lien's latest "one China" rhetoric has overturned his previous support for a confederation with China, as well as the People First Party's (PFP) "one China rooftop" framework. This will result in a policy conflict between the cross-strait policies of the KMT and the PFP, thereby heightening tensions within the pan-blue camp.
In fact, Lien's new position is the same as Chen Shui-bian's "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait dictum. It came as no surprise then that Premier Yu Shyi-kun welcomed Lien's "change of heart" regarding the nation's status and Lien's "support" for Chen's "one country on each side."
Ever since they teamed up for next year's election, the KMT and PFP have focused on negative campaigning. They have failed to present any concrete policy platform. Meanwhile, Chen and Lee have been presenting a succession of policies -- from introducing referendums to changing the country's name to enacting a new constitution. The KMT and the PFP have shown a pronounced inability to lead policy debate. And the one policy proposed by Lien has turned into a campaign booster for the DPP. The blue camp's lead in the polls may not last for too much longer if this situation continues.
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