With the the presidential election rapidly approaching, "reconciliation" is a topic that has been mentioned quite frequently recently by both the pan-green camp, including President Chen Shui-bian (
The pan-blue camp obviously equated the flag-raising ceremony with a campaign rally, and mobilized more than 10,000 supporters to attend the ceremony with Lien and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), who attended the occasion for the first time since their election defeat in 2000.
In contrast, from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), only a small number of government and party officials accompanied Chen and Vice President Annette Lu (
About two weeks ago, during a televised talk on the economic policies of the KMT and PFP, Lien indicated that the "illusory" political status of Taiwan as defined by the DPP conflicted with the economic status of Taiwan, obstructing the economic development of the country. Lien also said that in the future the pan-blue camp proposes to facilitate stability and prosperity with economic policies based on major "reconciliation," development and construction.
Around the same time, Chen indicated during a meeting with party representatives that after the election the DPP will open its heart and leave behind all the hatred and grudges developed during the election.
Unfortunately, despite the rosy picture painted by the both camps, and the genuine need of Taiwan for heartfelt reconciliation -- not only between political parties and camps but also between ethnic groups -- it is probably naive to think that everyone can let bygones be bygones once the election is over.
If the goal of interparty reconciliation is truly attainable, why didn't it happen after the 2000 presidential election? The reason is that the KMT, and as a matter of fact the entire pan-blue camp, was incapable of accepting defeat.
The so-called "reconciliation" between the KMT and PFP is no reconciliation at all. Instead, it is a marriage of convenience and for mutual survival and interests.
In view of the fact that this time the vote margin might be even smaller than last time, the likelihood of reconciliation seems more remote than it did after the last election. And this is not to mention that the wounds the parties have inflicted on each other over the past four years have only made things worse.
Then there is the issue of ethnic rivalry, which continues to be deeply embedded in Taiwan's politics. Interestingly enough, things are different here from how they are in other ethnically or racially diverse countries, where the majority and the minority groups tend to vote for members of their own groups.
In Taiwan, the ethnic majority -- the local Taiwanese people -- often vote across ethnic lines, as evidenced by the high level of popular support for Taipei City Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
However, the minority group -- the ethnic mainlanders -- perhaps feel intimidated and rarely vote outside of their group.
How much time will it take to resolve this inter-group rivalry and animosity? No one knows. But these problems will not vanish overnight on March 20.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS