In the US-Taiwan relationship, there are some similarities in the style, and the state, of presidential leadership. In the continuous watch of what China is doing and in the amount of time the respective administrations have to prepare for the next presidential election. In this process, the US ought to be watching the contest between the two major political parties in Taiwan, just as it is without doubt watching events in China.
If it is watching, it will see the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in turmoil, as one would expect after being badly beaten by the opposition in local elections. It was not a surprising defeat, but an unexpectedly large one that many within the party ranks believe could have been avoided.
An attempt during the first DPP administration to change the agriculture and fishery credit unions -- which for decades had been used by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to maintain their hold on local elections -- was proposed, but the proposal was never acted upon. Many believe it could have reduced if not completely changed the results of the recent elections.
During the last campaign, changes to the preferential 18 percent interest rates that are given to some retired government bureaucrats and military personnel (a holdover from the pre-democratic system) were proposed. However, some are already suggesting this ought to be reviewed. There was also an apparent effort to prosecute candidates who participated in vote-buying (of which it is believed a very large number had been caught during the campaign), but the "black gold" problem still may not be properly addressed.
Another element that many believe is the main reason for the defeat is the revelation of corruption within the government -- a subject that the DPP had previously tried hard to associate with the opposition party. Indeed, the polls seem to indicate that the KMT gained its usual number of votes in these elections, but the DPP's number of votes dropped significantly.
On the KMT side, observers see the results greatly strengthening the standing of the new party chairman. He was already in a strong position given his experience in Taiwanese politics and his name recognition. More importantly, his English-language capability and his understanding of "Western" thinking gives him a perceived advantage over most potential DPP candidates. Following the elections, his statements have been well received both in Taiwan and the US.
Though the KMT's recent victory clearly helped him gain the support of more members within the party, there are still important difficulties to overcome. There are at least three internal matters that need addressing. The old party elite, mainly but not entirely "mainlanders," who disagree with some of the Chairman's stated objectives. Party membership is 70 percent "localized" (ie, Taiwanese,) and there are two individuals who are at least his match in politics -- Wang Jin-pyng (
The two major political parties in Taiwan will struggle with each other one way or the other for the next two-and-a-half years. China has already shown that it can interfere, indirectly through the international community and more directly in Taiwan's domestic affairs. The US on the other hand can obviously make its concerns known to Taiwan, but there is now a potential difference in Taiwan's relationship with China that could alter the US' interests there.
This could, under some circumstances, influence the US' still evolving relationship with a much different China. The US-China relationship will not just be different from the past when the US' present relationship with Taiwan was formed, but different even from its present common democratic system.
To be sure, US President George W. Bush, more than past presidents, presses the need for democratic values with China. But for practical reasons he also works to improve the US-China relationship. The biannual meeting headed by Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick is an experiment in finding ways to strengthen common interests while developing means of managing issues that are problematic. It invites China "to work with us to shape the future international systems." It is intent on avoiding Cold-War tensions and the old balance of power systems.
Where will Taiwan stand in this potential new international system?
In Washington, all the issues that encompass both Taiwan and China seem to have drawn potential policies in different directions. It may be strengthening those that see the relationship with China as far more important, Taiwan democracy notwithstanding; it may influence those that see a different kind of Taiwan possibly moving to a closer relationship with China; or it may concern those that see either one as threatening. The political squabbles taking place in Taiwan are important and part of a free democratic system. Will the people be influenced to accept a different future for Taiwan?
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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