When it comes to the question of presidential debates, time limitations force the audience to judge the candidates on performance and personality, not detailed explanations of their campaign platforms. Yet what most voters need is a firm and clear stance on specific policies and issues. In this regard, President Chen Shui-bian (
In a face-to-face confrontation such as a TV debate, self-confidence and a politician's adherence to his or her philosophy are two keys to win support from the audience. Usually the challenger is more aggressive in attacking the incumbent's policies. But last Saturday it was Chen who seemed to be playing the role of gladiator and Lien was on the defensive. While Lien asked if the pan-green camp had any evidence of China's alleged collaboration with the pan-blue camp, Chen focused attention on Lien's long-time embracing of the "one China" principle and highlighted the differences between Lien and his running mate, People First Party chairman James Soong (
Moreover, Lien's suggestion that sovereignty issues be pushed to the side illustrated his lack of determination to adhere to Taiwan's national interests. His response was simply more oscillation on the "one China" issue. Hardly the image of a strong and patriotic leader that one would think Lien would want to be pushing.
Lien could have accused Chen of being sitting on the fence on cross-strait relations by advocating "a future `one China'" and "political integration with China," while insisting that there are two countries on either side of the Taiwan Strait. Chen, however, gained support by remaining steadfast on Taiwan's independent sovereignty. Lien's personal shortcoming lie not only in his conservative, stiff and always looking-to-the past political mindset but also in his inability to coordinate differing opinions within the pan-blue camp.
In their attempt to boycott the referendum, pan-blue politicians have adopted diverse approaches. Contrary to Soong's explicit rejection of the referendum, Legislative Yuan Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (
The pan-blue camp has long portrayed the Chen administration as vacillating in implementing policy. The Fourth Nuclear Power Plant fiasco, the bid to reform the farmers' and fishermen's cooperatives and its cross-strait policies are the most frequently cited cases. But to sabotage the government's efficiency is one thing, how to translate it into votes in the ballot box is another.
Lien's about-face in accepting the referendum as one step toward Taiwan's democratic consolidation and his bold proposal on constitutional reform demonstrated a lack of integrated policy within his camp. All his proposals reek of electioneering.
Lien owes voters a fair explanation of why he has introduced such dramatically different policy proposals over the past few months and in what direction this change will lead the nation. He needs not mute his desire for change or modify his ideas, but he must make sure his style matches the public's mood. Most importantly, by trying to convince voters that "moderation" is much more a key element of his personality than of Chen's, Lien will have to explain how he could turn moderate ideas into flexible and sometimes affirmative action.
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