In his resignation speech taking full responsibility for the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) poor performance in last week's legislative elections, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) called on all party members to engage in self-examination and rejuvenate themselves under the spirit of perseverance.
In quitting his post as DPP chairman, Chen portrayed himself as "the president of the people" and pledged to bridge the partisan gaps and reunite the nation.
Despite the president arguing that "a loss is a loss and we have to respect and abide by the people's choice," the fact is the DPP was able to earn two more seats and almost 2 percent more of the vote than it did three years ago. Unrealistic expectations and misallocation of votes contributed to the DPP's "poor" electoral results.
Without securing a de facto majority in the legislature, Chen will face tremendous challenges internally and externally in the remainder of his second term. It will take great courage and determination -- and most importantly, a readjustment of leadership -- for Chen to reset his agenda and reframe policy debates in accordance with the political realities.
There are at least three huge challenges that Chen needs to surmount, most importantly, an antagonistic and military-orientated regime in Beijing that has so far showed no respect for Chen and may continue to ignore his peace gestures. The second challenge is the partially damaged US-Taiwan relationship due largely to different views on Chen's push for the intensification of a Taiwan consciousness. The final challenge the president faces is the potential for prolonged gridlock with the pan-blue opposition in the legislature over the next three years.
Given that Beijing has continually poured cold water on Chen's proposal of establishing a cross-strait peace and stability framework, the Chinese leadership may continue its "no-contact policy" with the Chen administration and take advantage of the DPP's less-than-desirable performance in the elections. They may also try to encourage a public backlash against Chen and what are interpreted as moves toward Taiwan's independence. Under such circumstances, can Chen stick to his basic stance and reopen dialogue with his counterpart in Beijing on equal footing?
When it comes to the question of healing Taipei-Washington relations, the Bush administration must feel relieved after the pan-blue forces re-established a majority in the legislature. Still, Chen will have to reassure the US it will not be caught between the rise of a Taiwan consciousness and Chinese nationalism, while Chen's push for a new constitution by 2006 will have no bearing on Taiwan's status quo.
While urging the US to play a more constructive role of mediator between Taipei and Beijing, the Chen administration must ensure Washington plays a balanced role without sacrificing Taiwan's interests. Furthermore, Chen must work hard to restore Washington's trust and establish clear and candid channels of communication with the new Asian team in the second Bush administration.
Finally, as he pledged in his farewell speech that the DPP would forge ahead with reform and enhance democracy in Taiwan, first on Chen's domestic agenda is bridging the divisions in society which resulted from the heated and agitated campaign.
As a country struggling with the deepening of democracy, Taiwan yearns for more discipline, structure and order in all phases of its national life. Upset with political finger-pointing, a sense of political chaos and instability, and the occasional political exploitation of ethnic problems, Taiwanese voters are looking for national reconciliation and a leadership that can bring forth a unified and mature civil society.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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