The KMT is a political party for industrialists; the DPP is a representative of disadvantaged groups. These were their basic positions for many years. Since the DPP came to power, however, it has moved closer to business. Although the recent establishment of the Alliance for Fairness and Justice, or the Pan-Purple Alliance, formed by several social activist and disadvantaged groups does not represent a split between the DPP and social-activist groups, it does mean that these groups have issued a challenge to the DPP. Whether the alliance will become a friend or an enemy in next year's presidential election will depend on the party's response.
Since its inception, the DPP has reflected the opinions and power of social-activist groups. From environmentalists, labor unions, women's groups, handicapped-people's groups, educational and Aboriginal movements, we can see the DPP's support and encouragement. After coming to power, however, the DPP found it difficult to realize its ideals -- and meet the expectations of many activist groups. For example, it was forced to resume construction the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant issue in the face of the fierce political opposition, international pressure and a weakening economy. Even though the DPP had at least made an effort to stop construction of the plant, the anti-nuclear groups are still unhappy with the party. As a result, the DPP has no choice but to rebuild its relations with anti-nuclear groups by pushing a referendum on the future of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.
The DPP has positioned itself as a reformist party on most social issues. However, the party's revolutionary spirit has now been replaced by the capitalist consideration of competition. As the blue and green camps vie with each other to curry favor with vested interests, the idea of fairness, justice and helping the disadvantaged have been sacrificed. In the eyes of many activists, the DPP has forsaken its ideals. The changes in the party's social foundations and loss of its core values were key factors in its defeat in the recent Hualien County commissioner by-election.
Looking at street demonstrations in the past year -- from the labor protests against the hike in health-insurance fees, to farmers' protests against agricultural-financing reforms, to protests against educational reforms -- we can see the KMT's vigorous effort to transform itself.
Now, with the establishment of the Pan-Purple Alliance, we can see the loosening of the DPP's basic support. The DPP can absorb some support from business circles, use the independence-unification issue to distinguish the green camp from the blue camp, or use the referendum issue to solidify its support base. However, whether the Pan-Purple Alliance fields its own candidate or remains neutral in next year's election, it could still take votes from the DPP.
The blue camp stands to benefit from the Pan-Purple Alliance. The alliance may act as a pressure group in the election and force both the blue and green camps to accommodate its opinions. This will help correct the one-sided social values of both the blue and green camps. But if the Pan-Blue Alliance gets too involved, it will become a campaigner for the blue camp.
The question is: which side is more sympathetic to the ideas of the purple alliance, the blue camp or the green?
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS