During the past few weeks, Taiwan was prominently on display in the window of the world. Elections are generally exciting fare in any circumstances, but one can imagine that the Taiwanese people could have done with a bit less excitement this time around. Still, it is good to analyze the situation in Taiwan, and see how it looks from the perspective of western Europe.
Before going into the current situation, it is necessary to recall that Taiwan has come a long way from the repressive one-party state of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which held the nation in its iron grip from the mid-1940s through the end of the 1980s. The democratic transition which took place was primarily due to the hard work of the democratic movement, led by President Chen Shui-bian's (
In any society which goes through a major democratic transition, there are always elements which hark back to the undemocratic"good old days." In Russia and eastern Europe, there are such remnants of the communist parties. In Taiwan, at least a part of the KMT/People First Party (PFP) opposition seem to fall into this category: They cannot accept that Taiwan has become democratic and the DPP has come to power.
In addition to the democratic versus non-democratic dichotomy, there is the Taiwanese-minded orientation of Chen's DPP versus the Chinese-minded orientation of the present leadership of the KMT/PFP. During the 40 years of martial law, political power was virtually exclusively in the hands of the Chinese Mainlanders who came over with Chiang Kai-shek (
Still, Chen and his DPP have emphasized ethnic harmony: Anyone who loves Taiwan is considered Taiwanese, irrespective of ethnic origin. The present leadership in the KMT/PFP, on the other hand, has whipped up ethnic discord by twisting and distorting Chen's position.
Going into the election, the issue of a referendum was a major one. In any democratic society, a referendum is a commonplace mechanism to gauge the views of the population on a particular issue. In Taiwan it became a hot potato because its giant neighbor China doesn't like democracy, and the prospect of the Taiwanese people starting to use democratic means certainly looks blasphemous in the eyes of the communist dictatorship.
The problem was compounded when US President George W. Bush got into the act last December: Eager to placate visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
In spite of the fact that the blue camp jumped on the pro-China bandwagon and urged supporters to boycott the referendum (even the watered-down version), some 7.45 million voters expressed themselves in the referendum, with some 91 percent in favor of the purchase of additional weapons to counter China's threat. The fact that the referendum didn't make it was thus due to the high threshold -- 50 percent of the registered voters. With such a threshold most referendums wouldn't make it in western Europe either.
Next is the issue of the closeness of the outcome of the vote. In this, Taiwan is not unique. In many countries there have been close elections. But the essence of democracy is that the loser graciously concedes, and awaits his next turn. In Taiwan, we instead saw the spectacle of KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
Large numbers of international observers, including ourselves, can attest that the election process was orderly and that the counting was scrupulous. If there were reports of irregularities, they were of Lien and his party buying votes on a large scale, in particular paying for the tickets of thousands of China-based businessmen returning home to vote.
And then there was the assassination attempt. In any society this would have led to expressions of deep concern also from the opposition -- for the safety and well-being of the victims. But instead of focusing anger on the fact that such a reprehensible act could take place in Taiwan's traditionally peaceful society, Lien and Soong twisted things around and alleged that the assassination attempt had been staged.
This is simply ludicrous. If one would stage such a thing, then one would not do it in broad daylight, in the middle of a crowded street, with TV cameras rolling. The suggestion itself is testimony to the twisted minds of Lien and his followers.
If there are "clouds of secrecy, manipulation and mistrust" hanging over Taiwan, they are due to the hate campaigns of the pan-blue Lien-Soong ticket. They are simply sore losers who do not have the foggiest idea of what democracy is all about.
Where does Taiwan go from here? Getting back to normal is only possible if the KMT/PFP alliance atones for its mistakes and goes through a speedy reform process in which the old leadership is ditched, so that a new Taiwan-oriented leadership can come to the fore and lead the two parties toward a democratic role in society.
From the European perspective, we congratulate Chen and the DPP on his re-election, and for making democracy work in Taiwan spite of mountainous challenges. That is no small accomplishment, but the work is far from being complete. We wish Taiwan and its people well on the arduous road toward international recognition and a full and equal place as a member of the international family of nations. Many years from now, we will look back at March 2004 and conclude that it was an important watershed in Taiwan's history.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique in the Hague.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase