Former president Lee Teng-hui (
In a 2003 symposium entitled "Hong Kong under `one country, two systems,'" organized by Taiwan Advocates, an organization founded by Lee, I was interviewed by a reporter from a Hong Kong-based cable news channel. She asked me how far-reaching Lee's influence was, and what I thought about Lee's pro-Japan attitude.
I said Lee's role as a political figure was not as influential as when he was still president. Given that some who followed Lee did not do so out of idealism but out of personal interest, many turned against him after he stepped down.
Although Lee's followers have diminished in number, those remaining quite fervently pursue his political ideals. And even though Lee is the founder of the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), it is not appropriate to use results of opinion polls on support for the TSU to indicate the level of Lee's support, since many in the Democratic Progressive Party also support his ideas.
As to the second question, it is hardly surprising that Lee, who was born under Japanese rule, is pro-Japanese. Many Taiwanese who experienced the 228 Incident and other similar incidents of persecution involving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, felt that the KMT compared poorly with the Japanese government. These experiences are very different from those of Chinese who suffered the effects of the war with Japan.
I have encountered people who like to chastise Lee for having been a communist in his youth. This, in fact, is nothing to be ashamed of. At the time, a lot of passionate young people joined, or were sympathetic to the Communist Party because it was seen as idealistic.
Great changes have occurred in Taiwan in the 10 years since Lee's previous visit to the US, including the introduction of direct presidential elections and the transfer of government power. These developments are important to democracy in Taiwan and a first for the Chinese world. When the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) reacted to Lee's visit 10 years ago with verbal attacks and military threats, it showed its true militarist and expansionist face. This military threat only served to strengthen Taiwanese self-awareness.
When Lee mentioned the existence of the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan in his speech at Cornell University, he provoked China's irrational fury.
Today, the term ROC is not enough to satisfy Taiwanese who have developed a national identification with Taiwan and strive for the establishment of one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait. This wish is now gaining more and more currency with the US and the world at large.
Lee is a great contemporary Taiwanese politician. Through his vision, he has made a permanent contribution to Taiwan's democracy and its development in becoming a normal country. At a crucial juncture in Taiwan's political development, his rich political and economic experience has allowed him to fulfill the responsibilities of a loyal opposition by proposing principled goals and flexible strategies.
His ability to take a comprehensive view of the whole situation is one of the reasons why he has been so successful throughout his many decades in politics and also why he retains strong influence. If he has been guilty of any mistakes, it was that he believed in a few cheats who only wanted fame and wealth, and that he helped them gain high office.
Lee is a valuable asset for Taiwan and the whole Chinese world. This is demonstrated by the fact that the CCP has labeled him its enemy No. 1. The fact that Lee, having passed 80, still wants to serve the country also highlights the difficult situation that Taiwan finds itself in as a result of indiscriminate pressure placed on it by the Chinese.
During this visit to the US, I hope that he will make Taiwan's voice heard and that he will make suggestions that can bring Taiwan closer to the US and the world.
Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti and Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath