I took part in the recent inaugural meeting of the Democratic Pacific Union (DPU), held at Taipei's Grand Hotel. The handiwork of Vice President Annette Lu (
The DPU takes as its inspiration the notion of "soft power" set forth by Joseph Nye, a former dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
At the risk of oversimplifying, Nye urged the US to scale back the role of military force, or "hard power," in its foreign policy in favor of nonmilitary instruments such as economics, public diplomacy, and even the still-potent appeal of American culture.
A diplomacy built on soft power would create international goodwill and thus political conditions hospitable to US objectives in the world. Nye's point of reference was the envenomed climate surrounding the war in Iraq.
In an era of good feelings, the US would find it easier to persuade foreign governments to lend their support to US-led diplomatic enterprises.
Similarly, the DPU aims to construct a Pacific civilization -- Lu has talked of a "soft" or "blue," oceanic civilization -- that derives its strength not from hard but from soft power. Few could argue with this in principle. But the DPU could face a troubled future if it becomes entangled with cross-strait relations or with Taiwan's domestic politics -- as it very well might.
Two obvious dangers lurk. First, some observers -- especially in Beijing -- will likely see the DPU as an effort by Taipei to outflank China's efforts to shut Taiwan out of the international community. Indeed, a speaker at the inaugural meeting declared that one of the organization's purposes was to supply Taiwan with a parallel system of diplomatic relations -- lending credence to such views.
If China's leadership does regard the DPU as a thinly veiled attempt by Taipei to regain its international standing, it will undertake the kind of counter-diplomacy that has enabled it to squeeze Taiwan out of so many international institutions and to browbeat so many governments into severing ties with the country.
China is no stranger to the coercive use of soft power, especially its economic component.
The membership of the DPU is heavily concentrated in Latin America, along with many of the countries that have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
Beijing has reportedly begun using its waxing economic and diplomatic power to apply pressure on these governments.
Trying to split off members from the DPU and fracture Lu's Taiwan-centered soft civilization would be a logical next step in this campaign.
Taiwan cannot hope to compete with China in terms of providing DPU members with foreign investment and other economic assistance.
In short, China might make the DPU yet another theater in its diplomatic campaign to isolate Taiwan.
Putting some distance between the DPU and Taiwanese foreign policy is crucial to the organization's long-term health.
Second, Lu may have erred politically by linking the DPU too closely to her own Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Look at the DPU's promotional materials. The organization's logo consists of a map of the Pacific region.
In mid-Pacific are emblazoned the DPU core values: democracy, peace and prosperity. The D, P and P are highlighted in vivid orange, signifying democracy.
"DPP" leaps out at even the casual viewer.
The danger? The vagaries of democracy being what they are, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) will regain the presidency at some point, perhaps as early as 2008. A future KMT president who views the DPU as a purely DPP venture may be inclined to let it wither on the vine.
This will be doubly true should the legislature remain in the hands of the KMT-led pan-blue alliance.
For the good of the DPU, its leadership should play down the DPP's founding role in the organization.
At a minimum, its logo and other publications should be toned down.
Reaching out to the opposition, perhaps by appointing a KMT member to a senior post, would also help. A bipartisan enterprise stands a better chance of surviving and thriving over the long term.
To build a Pacific civilization, broaden the DPU beyond Taiwan.
James Holmes, a senior research associate at the University of Georgia Center for International Relations, is a DPU visiting fellow at National Chengchi University's Institute of International Relations.
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.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US