Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-Pyng (
It's worth noting that only Wang and a handful of pan-blue legislators showed up on deck to shout those fighting words. Other politicians and Minister of National Defense Lee Jye (
Unfortunately, the international press generally failed to discern this nuance and proceeded to report that the dispatch of a warship received widespread support in Taiwan since legislators from all three major political parties as well as the nation's defense chief took part in the trip.
Meanwhile, Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
In reality, both of these two pan-blue politicians, stressing their pro-China stance for the benefit of their deep-blue constituency, were echoing China's recent anti-Japan sentiment.
It should be noted that with near certainty one of these two individuals will end up as the candidate for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in the 2008 presidential election. That means Taiwan's bipolar politics will continue.
The rivalry of the two camps is no garden-variety interparty political game found in most democratic or pluralistic countries, including the US.
In Taiwan, there is no such thing as a "loyal" opposition because "loyalty" is the root of the rivalry -- namely, the pan-green camp prefers a sovereign Taiwan that would maintain close strategic ties with the US and Japan while the pan-blue camp -- with an eye to eventually cajoling Taiwan into China's grip -- is for a Taiwan that would defer to China for now.
Although results of public opinion polls have consistently indicated a substantial plurality favoring the pan-greens' cause, the two camps have been running neck and neck in terms of ballot strength in the past two years. The discrepancy can best be attributed to the existence of a large number of non-political Taiwanese who vote with near total disregard of a candidate's politics.
Personal charm, recommendations of a respected acquaintance or even an offer of bribes, both open -- such as extra benefits for special interest groups -- and secret, could play the most important role in those individuals' decision to vote for a candidate.
Some perplexing phenomena accompany this situation. Looking back on the KMT's 50-year rule, Taiwan's resources are disproportionately concentrated in areas where pan-blue supporters are in the majority. But those are the areas that have the most to lose in case of a takeover by China.
Similarly, people who enjoy privileges such as 18 percent annual interest on pensions by and large support the blue camp. Yet, again paradoxically, they have the most to lose where pan-blue leaders are taking them.
Since 2000, this electorate has produced domestic instability as well as a split government that is notorious for legislative gridlock. Fortunately, stability in terms of international relations has not suffered, primarily because the presidency has belonged to the pan-green camp for the last five years.
This stability could easily be replaced by turmoil if the color of the presidency were to switch in 2008. For instance, as soon as there is a pan-blue president, the US-Japan alliance would conclude -- or at least suspect -- that Taiwan has decided to cozy up with China, oppose Japan and stymie US initiatives. Taiwan's relationship with the US and Japan could then suffer. And, as a consequence, Taiwan might be further isolated to the point where it would have little choice.
Since Taiwan's future is too important to be left to chance, it's time to rouse those slumbering Taiwanese voters to help prevent it from ever becoming the casualty of an inattentive electorate.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
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