Print

Mail

wiki links

Why the blues are baiting Bush

The pan-blue alliance of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) have taken American Institute in Taiwan Chairwoman Therese Shaheen's recent statement -- that US President George W. Bush is helping Taiwan -- to mean that Bush is helping President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). They now regard her as persona non grata.

With complete disregard for the harm it may do to relations with the US, PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) has publicly claimed that Bush's younger brother accepted US$1 million so that Chen would meet him. Soong's claim immediately attracted unqualified support from the KMT.

How is it that this political party, which for 50 years relied on the US to maintain its dictatorship, has suddenly become so aggressive toward its former benefactor?

To solve this riddle, we must analyse the fundamental conflict between Bush's policies and KMT-PFP interests.

It can be argued that Bush is an orthodox conservative in foreign policy. When still a presidential candidate, he said that China was the foremost enemy of the US.

In an interview with CNN in 2000, Bush didn't backtrack from the `one China' policy, but he did deny that China had the right to rule a democratic Taiwanese people. When asked whether the US should demand Taiwan refrain from declaring independence, he only stressed that the conflict ought to be resolved through peaceful means.

China is the chief enemy of the US; China has no right to rule a democratic Taiwan; the Taiwan issue must be resolved through peaceful means. These statements are the core of the Bush administration's China policy.

What is more important is Bush's moving from strategic ambiguity to "strategic clarity," that is, a clear declaration of the US' determination to protect Taiwan and avoid a misunderstanding with China and a repeat of the 1996 missile incident.

Although Bush has been pushing and pulling China in various ways, his position remains intact -- China must understand that if it takes military action, the US will help Taiwan defend itself.

With Bush adopting this position, the KMT is just as worried as China. Since this issue has to be peacefully resolved in any event and since Bush has no intention to urge Taiwan to abandon any push for independence, the KMT's frequent declarations that "Taiwan independence means war" and "the US does not support the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP]" have lost credibility. Ever since Bush became president, the KMT has kept a close eye on his every move in support of Taiwan, because each move has meant support for the DPP. And this must be belittled.

This line was first proposed by Lien Chan himself. Not long after the mid-air collision between a US spy plane and a Chinese fighter plane over Hainan in 2001, Lien correctly pointed out that the new US administration's China policies were already leaning towards Taiwan. Although this premise was correct, Lien's conclusion that "Taiwan must not become someone else's pawn" makes it appear that the US' leaning towards Taiwan should be a source of concern, not joy.

Soon after that, KMT foreign policy strategist Shaw Yu-ming (邵玉銘), commenting on the welcome Chen received in the US, pointed out that if Taiwan became too close to the US, the result would be China starting to view Taiwan as an enemy. The conclusion he drew was: "We do not want Taiwan to become a pawn in American foreign policy."

While the US is working hard to improve Taiwan's military capability, the KMT and the PFP are sworn opponents to these arms sales. Soong even opposes military exchanges between Taiwan and the US, saying that military officers who go to the US to receive training are "going to the US to attend their own Chukuang Day." (Chukuang Day was a weekly political indoctrination program on the military-owned TV station CTS which Taiwan's servicemen were once required to watch.)

On the eve of the war in Iraq, 44 KMT and PFP legislators signed a joint statement opposing the war. PFP caucus whip Chou Hsi-wei (周錫瑋) bluntly called Chen "the United States' child emperor."

In August, Lien reiterated at the KMT's national conference that "Taiwan will under no circumstances accept China's `one country, two systems' model, nor will we become US pawns."

These are tough words, but what the KMT and the PFP really want is for Bush to ease back on the promises he made to Taiwan. This is why Lien, during every visit he makes to the US, promotes the idea that the election of the KMT is the outcome most compatible with US interests.

On his most recent US visit, Lien almost fawningly said that Taiwan shouldn't create trouble for its friend as the US was racking its brains over Iraq. According to Lien, "being at the vanguard for our American friends" meant blocking the passage of a referendum law and pretending there was no need to discuss a new constitution.

But the Bush administration didn't buy into that. After all, Lien and Soong have been publicly hostile toward the US over the last three years.

After Chen's recent high-profile treatment in the US, the KMT and the PFP felt betrayed, and even the US' first family was attacked personally. It is therefore doubtful that relations with the US will be mended if Lien and Soong win the presidency and vice presidency next year.

In retrospect, the KMT and the PFP's three-year-old policy of hostility toward the US has not been just some strategic miscalculation, but rather a necessity. Only if the US continues its approach of strategic ambiguity can the KMT continue to declare that its "neither unification nor independence" policy can be in the best interests of Taiwan. A US president's adopting strategic clarity is unacceptable to China, and is equally unacceptable to the KMT and the PFP. It will therefore be difficult for both China and the Lien-Soong team to avoid clashing with Bush.

Liang Wen-chieh is deputy director of the DPP's Policy Coordination Committee.

Translated by Perry Svensson
This story has been viewed 2040 times.