After the Central Election Commission (CEC) formally
announced the re-election of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), the US on March 26 issued a statement to congratulate Taiwan. The statement reads, "We recognize that there are pending legal challenges to the results of the March 20 election. We applaud the people of Taiwan for embracing established legal mechanisms and rejecting extra-legal options to resolve their differences. We reject calls for violence, which threaten the very democratic principles to which we and the people of Taiwan are committed." The US statement is the best possible blessing for a democratic Taiwan.
The pan-blue camp had used US ambiguity to highlight what it called the unfairness of the presidential election. However, what pushed Washington to change was precisely the poverty of the blue camp's post-election strategy.
First, the legal basis of the pan-blue complaint is thin. Given a narrow margin of only 0.228 percent between the two camps, a demand for a recount was reasonable. But the blue camp then tried to gain more from the green camp after its demands were met with goodwill. Not only did the pan-blue camp call for a new election, it also vetoed a green camp proposal to amend the law and add a provision allowing for an "administrative recount," insisting instead that a "judicial recount" be imposed. As a result, a reasonable demand became unreasonable. The recount was not the blue camp's real purpose, because the result would not necessarily fall in its favor. Its real purpose was to engineer a mass movement to force Chen and Lu to step down. This could be considered an attempted coup d'etat.
Second, the blue camp's use of violence eroded its credibility. Certain legislators have been stirring up violence ever since Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) protested against the result on election night. Taiwan has brought about a democracy through several decades of "quiet revolution." Are these politicians -- notably PFP Legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) -- trying to revolt against it? And could such a revolution legitimize itself through violence?
Before the US congratulated Chen, China's Taiwan Affairs Office changed its low-key attitude and warned that "we will not sit by watching should the post-election situation in Taiwan get out of control, leading to social turmoil, endangering the lives and property of Taiwan compatriots and affecting stability across the Taiwan Strait."
The statement also stressed that "we have noticed that Taiwan's electoral agency already announced the election results, disregarding the strong opposition from one of the two camps, and that the opposition camp has refused to accept the results while continuing its protest." We can interpret this as a statement of support for the pan-blue camp.
I believe that such interference also pushed the US to clarify its stance. Otherwise, backed by Beijing, some politicians could be tempted to start riots and subversive behavior to trigger Chinese military interference. Washington had to clearly recognize the results of this election before such military interference could eventuate. It was also an indirect warning to the pan-blue camp, advising it to resolve the matter by legal means.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) should sincerely communicate with the public, approaching those who oppose it with humility. Nor should the DPP get carried away over the US message. Nor should it be too nervous about Chinese threats. Taiwan needs internal solidarity. This is where Taiwan's strength will lie if it wants to save itself from further instability.
Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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