Between March 13 and April 10, hundreds of thousands of pan-blue supporters were quick to take to the streets. The pan-blue parties, in the past always considered unjust or anti-reform, seemed surprised at having won such massive public support and appeared to be at a loss about what to do with it.
What kind of person is a pan-blue supporter? If the green camp is centered on a Taiwan consciousness, is the blue camp centered around a China consciousness? Is this really a matter of opposition based on national identification?
Not necessarily, as only some pan-blue supporters identify with China. What pan-blue supporters share is an obvious anti-green sentiment.
A social sentiment developing in the US has been called ABB -- Anyone But Bush. It has been a long time since many Americans have been passionate about politics, and voter turnout in most elections is barely 50 percent.
Since George W. Bush became president, however, many Americans have developed a passion for politics. Following the reports about US torture of Iraqi prisoners, opinion polls put the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry, ahead of Bush -- not because of something he has said or done, but because of the ABB sentiment.
My sister, who lives in the US, thinks Kerry is just another politician who says whatever is required to further his interests. Although she doesn't like Kerry, she finds Bush unbearable, and so says she has no choice but to support Kerry. That's the ABB attitude -- as long as it means getting rid of Bush, anyone will do. When I visited one of my thesis professors at Stanford University last year, this ordinarily cultured and refined scholar constantly shook his head and sighed as soon as Bush was mentioned, strongly disagreeing with Bush's playing his patriot games in the name of fighting terrorism.
The same type of sentiment is growing in Taiwanese society, and it can even be called by the same acronym, ABB -- Anyone But Bian (President Chen Shui-bian,
There are those who continue to long for Chinese culture, but they are outnumbered by pragmatists who feel that improving Taiwan's economy requires fixing the cross-strait relationship. There are also "cowards" who fear that both China and Taiwan will play it tough, and who therefore feel that Taiwan's China policy should be one of intelligently playing a weak nation against a stronger one.
There are also those who only oppose Chen, those who can't stand the government's ever-changing policies -- for example, educational reforms -- and those who detest Chen's way of doing things, who can't stand his constant transformations and fear he will become a populist dictator.
It is not at all certain that all these people identify with China, or that they like the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the People First Party (PFP). But with no other counterbalancing forces around, they have no choice but to gather around the pan-blues.
This is the reason why tens of thousands of people answered KMT Chairman Lien Chan's (連戰) calls for action despite his lack of charisma. When Bush arouses patriotic fervor in the name of fighting terrorism, thereby consolidating his strength and support, he also arouses ABB sentiment in American society. Taiwan's politicians should learn something from the US experience.
Luo Jar-der is an associate professor at Yuan-Ze University.
TRANSLATED BY Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath