When President Lee Teng-hui (
It is no mystery that what Lee desires most is to secure his legacy as the "father of democracy" in Taiwan. To do so, that democracy must continue to develop and deepen, and he must be able to establish his credit for such a positive outcome. Undoubtedly, he has in mind the example of the first US president, George Washington, who could easily have been elected for life, but stepped down after two terms, establishing such an indelible precedent that it was not even written into the US Constitution until after World War II.
Ironically, the comparison may be more apt than it first appears. Most scholars of history now acknowledge that Washington's actual policies were lackluster. His achievement lies largely in the act of retirement, and his greatest speech was his Farewell Address. Through these simple steps, he took a major step toward consolidating America's very new democratic system.
The comparison does not stop there. During Washington's presidency, there were no political parties per se; a variety of differing opinions on specific policies, such as how to promote economic development, were contained within a broad ideological "big tent." However, immediately upon his exit from the scene, two parties sprang up, and politics entered a period of polarization. Likewise in Taiwan, although parties have emerged already, it remains true that the era of genuine party competition awaits the post-Lee era. As with the post-Washington US, we should brace ourselves for a fairly tumultuous beginning.
As far as achieving a "peaceful transfer," what Lee has given us so far is the "peaceful" part; indeed, the most significant part of his legacy may well be the successful depoliticization and nationalization of the armed forces. When Lee took office, the military was led by highly politicized mainlanders, who posed at least a potential threat to the development of indigenous democracy. Today, we need not fear the military's interference in the upcoming election, and it is unthinkable that a coup might be launched against the next government. Considering the recent experience of many of our neighbors, this is no mean feat, and Lee deserves due credit.
On the other hand, the act of "transfer" has been left to future governments to address. The hallmark of a mature democracy is not only that the principle of alternation of the party in power has been established, but that it has been put into practice so often that it becomes routine, a fundamental fixture of the political culture. Only in this way can independence and neutrality of the civil service, the judiciary and the military be assured. Changing the single figure in the Presidential Office is insufficient to achieve this goal, as Mexico and others have demonstrated amply.
That Taiwan will have a new, freely elected president this spring is something that the whole country can be proud of. That that man will have an enormous load of work ahead of him to take Taiwan into the "third stage of reform" is something that we must be prepared for. Both facts are legacies of President Lee. The peaceful transfer of power is absolutely critical, but it is nonetheless only one step in an ongoing process of democratic reform.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath