The reactions to President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) statement last Sunday about pushing for a new constitution are worthy of re-examination.
Outside the country, both the US and China have been relatively controlled and cautious. For Beijing authorities, who are given to outlandish denouncements of anything that smacks of independence, this was a surprise. Here at home, the pan-blue alliance appears somewhat disappointed that the whole thing did not escalate into a greater controversy.
The statement by US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher the day after Chen's talk -- that the US did not want to comment on an election campaign statement -- demonstrated primarily a determination on the part of the US government to maintain a hands-off posture toward the domestic politics of Taiwan. With the next presidential election approaching rapidly, the US obviously hopes to refrain from giving the impression of siding with any particular political party or candidate.
Still, some local pro-China media and politicians said that Boucher's talk had a condescending tone and that his underlying message was that Chen's announcement was a mere campaign gimmick -- not to be taken seriously.
It is certainly appropriate to characterize Chen's remarks as part of his "campaign platform," as they depict a goal he has set or a promise he has made to the voters about what is to be accomplished once he is re-elected. It is hard to understand why that characterization, by itself, is a negative one.
After all, all candidates must have campaign platforms. Otherwise, how would the voters be able to decide for whom to cast their votes? KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) have campaign platforms too.
Of course in Taiwan, most politicians have been unable to live up to even half of their campaign promises after they are elected. Sometimes this inability reflects the irresponsibility of the politicians who simply become too preoccupied with other matters, such as looking after their own interests. Sometimes the failure to deliver on promises is a result of being held back by political obstacles.
What matters is whether these politicians had the best interests of the people and the country in mind when they made the promises and whether they were sincere about living up to their pledges after being elected.
We believe that Chen's pledge is both sincere and in the best interests of the nation. It is both unfair and premature of the pro-China camp to accuse Chen of being insincere about implementing changes. After all, in the past three years, he has personally experienced the difficulties created by this handicapped Constitution.
Indeed, very few people could honestly deny the fact that there are serious flaws with the Republic of China Constitution. It was drafted in the 1940s in China, with a view to implementation there. Some of the fundamental problems with the current Constitution seriously impair the operation of the government in Taiwan.
One question that should be asked of the pan-blue forces is this: What do they intend to do with all these problems associated with the current Constitution? Surely, they can't argue that there is nothing wrong with it. And surely, they cannot merely say, as Lien did, that the whole subject is "boring."
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers