The "seven-day coup d'etat" that lasted from March 20 through March 27 is a major incident in Taiwanese history.
The first reason it is so important is that the party-state system of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) boldly attempted to alter the results of a democratic election with this "coup," failing by a hair's breadth, and thereby signalling the end of the party-state.
The other reason is that the consolidation of Taiwan's democracy is no longer in doubt, and from now on we can work on deepening it.
Future historians are sure to add their bit to this incident, perhaps even in the style of the historian Jonathan Spence.
Spence might have written about the former chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party, Hsu Hsin-liang (
president, according to the wishes of the Taiwanese people." Such an account certainly would spotlight the absurdities of Lien, Soong and the pan-blue camp.
This attempted "coup" is neither a fabrication nor an unfounded accusation, and it is not hard to see why both former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) brought it up.
Chen actually said: "It has been said that there was an abortive coup d'etat between March 21 and 27."
Notice the judicious use of the words "It has been said that." To put it more finely, Chen approached the "seven-day coup d'etat" with a political solution in mind.
The pan-blues apparently became livid upon hearing these comments. The People First Party demanded an apology from Lee and Chen within 24 hours, and the KMT asked for evidence to justify use of the coup label.
It's possible that neither man has substantial evidence to offer, but it could also be that they are just not willing to reveal it.
If they do, in fact, have such evidence, and wanted to do something about it, they could throw Taiwan into turmoil. This would be of no obvious advantage to the authorities, and they may well be keeping mum about it for this reason, preferring not to take it any further.
Do I have any basis for saying this? Yes, I do, in the infamous Watergate scandal.
This scandal started when US president Richard Nixon was campaigning for re-election in 1972, and people working for him broke into Democratic Party offices in the Watergate Hotel.
It appears that during his 1968 campaign Nixon had used his "secret emissary" Anna Chennault (
This effectively crippled then US president Lyndon Johnson's foreign policies. Nixon's intention was to demonstrate Johnson's inability to end the war in Vietnam. In return, Nixon promised to help the South unite Vietnam after he was elected. Johnson kept quiet about Nixon's treasonous behavior, even keeping it under wraps when Nixon won the election. He did, however, force Nixon to stop the US war in return for his silence.
In 1972 Nixon sought re-election, and put his neck on the line with the Watergate burglary to find out whether the Democrats were planning to use the stick of his past deeds to beat him with.
Nixon's behavior was in fact treasonous, but Johnson kept it under wraps for the good of the country. Is this the situation facing Chen?
Chin Heng-wei is editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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