Two battles have to be fought during next month's legislative elections: one domestic and one across the Taiwan Strait. The cross-strait battle is real, while the domestic one is an empty battle. If that also were to develop into a real battle, it would be to the detriment of the country.
President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) statements regarding a seven-day "soft coup" attempt are very sensitive allegations. Important pan-blue camp politicians have either struck back at Chen or have tried to distance themselves from the controversy. The problem is that during those seven days, the people of Taiwan could see how some politicians were engaged in revolution. They called for the help of supporters and they took action, but with the public being reasonable and the military remaining neutral, things did not develop further. The question is if this was all a matter of individual behavior, or if the leadership of a political party supported it. If top leaders did not agree and it was all a matter of individual actions, then there is no reason to get so agitated and make people think Chen has hit the nail on the head.
People First Party Chairman James Soong's (宋楚渝) hurried comparison of the resignations of US Secretary of State Colin Powell and top CIA leaders after the US presidential election with the resignation of generals in Taiwan is merely the result of Soong being eager to strike back at Chen. The polarization during the US election campaign dissipated quite quickly once the election was over. Did Senator John Kerry follow the example of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and Soong and bring the public with him to the gates of the White House to wave banners and demand that President George W. Bush step down? Did he call for his supporters to attack the White House? Which US members of Congress followed Chiu Yi's (邱毅) example and led the public in attacks on government authorities in the name of revolution? Did anyone call for the US military to rebel? If nothing like this happened, then how could there be any kind of comparison?
As for the unnamed retired generals, there is no need for them to come forward to explain themselves. Anyone doing so does it at their own risk, since it is the same as admitting their guilt. The military's duty is to protect the nation, and since it has already been put under the command of the state, everything must be done to avoid having it being embroiled in electoral struggles.
It is also a fact that China-friendly politicians took the opportunity to sow discord between the military and government by making statements aimed at confusing the military. This is cause for alarm. As Taiwan's election campaign is blazing ahead, People's Liberation Army (PLA) submarines have passed close to Taiwan when entering Japanese territorial waters, bringing still more tension to the already tense Sino-Japanese relationship. Given that the submarines stayed for several hours, it was not a matter of carelessly entering Japanese waters, nor was there an attempt to offer timely explanations or apologies after the submarines were pursued by the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces.
The "technical problems" excuse offered by China later does not mean that the submarines were experiencing technical problems, but rather that technical problems occurred when trying to come up with a satisfactory explanation. Since several days of investigation to clear things up were required before an apology was offered, it seems it was more of a political problem.
International military observers have offered several conjectures and comments about the incident, including intelligence gathering, surveying, provocation and so on. But no one has as of yet ventured a guess as to whether it is a reflection of a political struggle within China's top leadership, or if someone in the PLA is acting on his own, trying to cause a deterioration in the Sino-Japanese relationship by forcing Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) to take a tougher diplomatic stance. Something like this used to be unimaginable. But since the curtain has fallen on strongman politics in China and advantage is everything, this possibility cannot be completely eliminated.
Because Taiwan has provided Japan (and probably the US) with intelligence regarding the PLA submarines' transgressions, other countries are becoming increasingly confident in Taiwan's self-defense capabilities as they raise their level of alertness against the PLA. But the nation's military is once again becoming the focus of public debate. China-friendly politicians may once again want the military to provide China with detailed information, all in the name of the freedom of expression. I trust that the military has already passed the democratic test and knows how to face vicious questioning by these politicians without being swayed.
The national army is charged with the important task of keeping Taiwan secure. Politicians should let the military off the hook, refrain from making it the focus of media attention, and allow it to concentrate on military matters. They should not let the army become the source of friction. If they really want to show concern for the military, they should hurry to pass the arms procurement budget, thereby increasing both military and public's security and deterring China's armed threat, instead of acting as China's accomplices.
Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past