On his recent visit to the US, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Lien also made another interpretation of the "one China" principle that was in fact closer to the green camp's stance. Therefore, some intriguing questions are raised: Which has better relations with Washington, the blue or the green camp? What does Lien's statement signify?
To be fair, the blue camp has better connections and diplomatic experience in the US compared to the green camp. This is because the blue camp had years of experience in running the nation in the past, and therefore had more chances to build relations with Washington. Besides, many blue-camp heavyweight politicians received their education in the US, and they speak English fluently. These politicians were quite friendly and tactful to US officials when they were in office. But most green-camp politicians started their political careers from local elections, and they are relatively young. Another factor is the uniqueness of diplomacy, which can be observed from the fact that none of Taiwan's representatives abroad are Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) members.
This situation is not necessarily related to professional diplomatic training or the amount of a party's talent. The KMT often appointed retired high-level military officers as Taiwan's ambassadors in the past, and they mostly did their jobs well. Many US ambassadors are considered outsiders of the State Department. For example, both American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairwoman Therese Shaheen and AIT Director Douglas Paal are not professional diplomats. But they are able to give orders to professional bureaucrats without difficulty.
Nevertheless, the US thinking on Taiwan's future political situation may be somewhat irrelevant to Washington's relations and familiarity with either the blue or the green camp. For Washington, the uncertainty of a blue-camp government is actually higher than that of a green-camp government. Although the green camp has more new and strange ideas, its power base simply comes from the green-camp supporters, as well as the US support for the nation's democracy and freedom -- which can be solely decided by Washington. However, the blue camp's power base comes not only from its own supporters but also from the other side of the Taiwan Strait. It's a fact that Beijing is more friendly to the blue camp, and appreciates certain individuals in the camp, while the Chinese government has always condemned the green camp both orally and in writing.
Next, the green camp's stance is simple and understandable to Washington. But the blue camp is a unity of two plates. A collision of plates is a potential source of earthquakes, geographically and politically. For example, the blue camp has made various interpretations on the cross-strait issue and Taiwan's status -- including the "one-China roof (一中屋頂)" and "one China, with each side making its own interpretation (一中各表)." Since the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) united equally, any individual in the two parties is unable and unsuitable to represent the entire camp. Moreover, the US is at a loss what to do in the face of China's interaction with and support for the blue camp. But it's much easier for the US to affect or even manipulate the green camp.
As the opposition leader, Lien had a successful visit to the US, which proved that Taiwan's overall diplomatic environment in the US has not changed after the nation's power transition in 2000. He also clarified the meaning of the "one China" principle, and repeatedly assured Washington of stable Taiwan-US relations in the future. As the deputy chief of the KMT's cultural and communication department Kuo Su-chun (郭素春) said, "The `one China' for us is the Republic of China, while for the mainland is the People's Republic of China." These actions indirectly show that Lien already realized the US position in cross-strait relations, as well as Washington's possible doubts about the blue camp. His remarks served as a clear sign.
Bill Chang is a former deputy director of the DPP's Chinese Affairs Department.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations