Prior to celebrating the fourth anniversary of its founding on Aug. 6, the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) is reported to have mulled direct interaction with China. Appearing as it did in the headlines of the China Times, the TSU's action indeed came as a shock.
The pan-blue camp considered the TSU's move to be to its advantage, as it indicates that the visits by both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) chairmen to China have triggered a domino effect, causing even the most vociferous pro-independence party to jump on the "China fever" bandwagon. Most pan-greens found the TSU's move unbelievable and suicidal.
It's hardly surprising to see that the TSU is drawing a great deal of criticism after its intentions were made public. In addition, the party's lame attempts to explain its proposed new policy shows that they have yet to grasp the gravity of the situation.
The party official who proposed the policy shift, Director of the TSU's Department of Policy Studies Lee Hsien-jen (
To defend his position on this issue, TSU Chairman Shu Chin-chiang (蘇進強) said that the TSU would not jump on the China bandwagon and that in interacting with Beijing, it would adopt the principle of the "three noes": it would not rule out possibilities, not reject possibilities and not actively pursue such possibilities.
Most party members won't object to that. But the real problem is this. The TSU has now agreed to support "normal" cross-strait relations on two conditions: first, that China stop its restriction of Taiwan's international space. Second, that China not insist on unification as a precondition for talks. If those conditions are met, the TSU has in turn said it will not set independence as a condition for talks. Under these parameters, Shu said, the two sides of the Strait could pursue a normalization of relations. While this is not exactly an about-face, it is certainly a shift to a more moderate position.
It's fine if the TSU takes a more moderate tack. But we must realize that when the TSU shifts, a new political group will immediately take over its current ideological position. This is typical of the political scene in Taiwan. The point is, the TSU will be pronounced dead on the day it begins moving to the moderate center, for its existence as a party is meaningless without its pro-independence stance.
The TSU's shift has a lot to do with the "single-member district, two-vote" electoral system that will be used for future legislative elections. As the "fundamentalist" group in the pan-green camp, the TSU is now worried that they will not be able to survive under the new system unless they adopt a more centrist approach.
To be sure, the new electoral system puts the TSU at a distinct disadvantage. However, will abandoning their core ideology win them more votes? They will likely suffer more than benefit from trying to moderate their stance. What sets the TSU apart and gives it appeal at the ballot box is that it champions establishing Taiwan as an independent country.
There's another, perhaps even more serious question: In light of the recent proposal, do the members of the TSU still represent the ideals of former president Lee Teng-hui (
Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator based in Taipei.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS