With the the presidential election rapidly approaching, "reconciliation" is a topic that has been mentioned quite frequently recently by both the pan-green camp, including President Chen Shui-bian (
The pan-blue camp obviously equated the flag-raising ceremony with a campaign rally, and mobilized more than 10,000 supporters to attend the ceremony with Lien and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), who attended the occasion for the first time since their election defeat in 2000.
In contrast, from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), only a small number of government and party officials accompanied Chen and Vice President Annette Lu (
About two weeks ago, during a televised talk on the economic policies of the KMT and PFP, Lien indicated that the "illusory" political status of Taiwan as defined by the DPP conflicted with the economic status of Taiwan, obstructing the economic development of the country. Lien also said that in the future the pan-blue camp proposes to facilitate stability and prosperity with economic policies based on major "reconciliation," development and construction.
Around the same time, Chen indicated during a meeting with party representatives that after the election the DPP will open its heart and leave behind all the hatred and grudges developed during the election.
Unfortunately, despite the rosy picture painted by the both camps, and the genuine need of Taiwan for heartfelt reconciliation -- not only between political parties and camps but also between ethnic groups -- it is probably naive to think that everyone can let bygones be bygones once the election is over.
If the goal of interparty reconciliation is truly attainable, why didn't it happen after the 2000 presidential election? The reason is that the KMT, and as a matter of fact the entire pan-blue camp, was incapable of accepting defeat.
The so-called "reconciliation" between the KMT and PFP is no reconciliation at all. Instead, it is a marriage of convenience and for mutual survival and interests.
In view of the fact that this time the vote margin might be even smaller than last time, the likelihood of reconciliation seems more remote than it did after the last election. And this is not to mention that the wounds the parties have inflicted on each other over the past four years have only made things worse.
Then there is the issue of ethnic rivalry, which continues to be deeply embedded in Taiwan's politics. Interestingly enough, things are different here from how they are in other ethnically or racially diverse countries, where the majority and the minority groups tend to vote for members of their own groups.
In Taiwan, the ethnic majority -- the local Taiwanese people -- often vote across ethnic lines, as evidenced by the high level of popular support for Taipei City Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
However, the minority group -- the ethnic mainlanders -- perhaps feel intimidated and rarely vote outside of their group.
How much time will it take to resolve this inter-group rivalry and animosity? No one knows. But these problems will not vanish overnight on March 20.
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