Though the primaries have not been completed, it is becoming increasingly likely that the candidates for the presidential election in the US this coming November will be President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry. The two political parties will soon begin putting together their respective platforms, with the primary focus on domestic issues (taxes, employment, homeland security, social welfare), but close behind will be Iraq and the problematic state of US international relationships.
Cross-strait issues, as in the past, will likely be included, but well buried in the debate about international relations. By the time US elections take place, Taiwan's attention will be on the Legislative Yuan elections in December.
On the Democratic side, most of the candidates in the primaries have voiced strong support for Taiwan. The leading contender on the Democratic side, however, when responding to a question, said that he was a strong supporter of the "one China" policy, and that Taiwan should consider the "one country, two systems" offer.
That view is not likely to make it to the Democratic platform, however. Few of his senatorial comrades are familiar with details of the cross-strait issues, but it was not encouraging to hear a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee suggest the people of Taiwan should "use the framework of one country, two systems" to solve cross-strait problems. One has to hope his advisers will eventually bring his knowledge about Taiwan closer to reality.
On the Republican side, Bush has made a strong case for the high priority the US must have in expanding and strengthening democracy around the world. He gets full support for this from Congress and the American public. On this point, Taiwan's security shield, after the military and the weapons they can procure, is democracy. With the changing national priorities that resulted from Taiwan's democratization, however, military hardware is more difficult to acquire and democracy continues to be challenged by China.
To add to the complexity of America's cross-strait policies is the growing need for the US to work more closely with China on specific issues such as North Korea. So far, the US has maintained a balanced approach to the two sides in the always sensitive cross-strait issue. By doing so, the Bush administration also maintains the support of the American voters on this subject. But the mixture of interests that America has will make the wording used on cross-strait policies in both political platforms a goldmine (or a minefield) of interesting rhetoric.
As the many experts on China and Taiwan in the US prepare papers or briefings for candidates and party positions for the next elections, many of the positions emanating from Taiwan and China will influence what the experts write. For Taiwan, most of what they hear or read may come from the views of academics and officials, but the most influential will likely be the Taiwan media. What these same people hear or read from China will be the organized and narrow view from the government-controlled media and officials. That is an advantage for China.
The formal public debate in Taipei by the two candidates for the presidency, on the other hand, is an advantage for Taiwan. It is not what was said, so much as simply having an open, orderly and fairly run debate by respected individuals and organizations. It established a precedent that is good for the people of Taiwan while also assuring people abroad that democracy is deeply embedded.
Also, the referendum and discussion about constitutional change can demonstrate the depth and maturity of the democracy that has been achieved. The process of doing this without raising tensions while accomplishing an objective is not new for Taiwan. Localization of top official positions in government, acceptance of election results, direct elections, downsizing the government -- all have been accomplished gradually and peacefully, although not always without anxiety in Washington and opposition in Beijing.
This same strategy of gradually making needed changes to keep pace with realities will come to be accepted as not being provocative or changing the cross-strait status quo. It may have been helpful when the long-standing objective of using referendums as a means of change arose, and at the same time provide a universally recognized right for people to more directly play a role in governance.
China had succeeded in convincing China experts abroad that referendums for Taiwan were intolerable. Since this issue was not previously an active problem, the fact that holding a referendum is a basic human right employed by democracies worldwide simply was not considered. In fact, "democracy," from its Greek origins, connotes individual voting on each issue. We now call it a referendum.
For the most part, on the referendum issue, reason has prevailed, and though some anxiety persists, increasingly it is accepted that a wisely considered use of referendums does not change relationships between the US, Taiwan and China, nor threaten a unilateral change of status that could result in bloodshed.
This does not do much for insisting on "maintaining the status quo," except perhaps to encourage a change in nomenclature. This is needed. No change, which is what status quo means, historically has always been the strategy for defeat. Perhaps the situation could be described as "maintain peaceful change." One can also hope that China, which has changed its attitude toward the international community in many ways, will begin to accept that the "one China" principle, "one country, two systems," and the vast number of "compatriots on Taiwan" that supposedly want unification are things of the past.
Nat Bellocchi is the former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS