Late last year I was visited by a former student who I hadn't seen for some 30 years. Now teaching at a reputable university in the southern US -- having gone there on a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) sponsored Sun Yat-sen scholarship -- he has reached the top of his field, his articles printed in major periodicals several times a year.
During the course of our conversation, he expressed his disappointment with the KMT, saying that the party was submissive in its cross-strait policy, and that this had harmed his dignity as a Taiwanese. Also, he said the party's obstruction of the arms procurement budget made it difficult for him to continue supporting it, and he has become gradually more sympathetic to the localization factions.
I was very surprised to hear these words coming from a former recipient of a Sun Yat-sen scholarship. To me, the remarks meant that should the KMT be hoping to win and maintain the support of the majority of the electorate, and even to win back the reins of government by pressing on with these policies, they have a long and arduous road ahead of them.
A wave of optimism has spread through the pan-blue camp and several years of accumulated resentment has been swept away by their strong showing in the local government elections held at the end of last month. They also have the pan-greens on the run in the legislature. The expectations born of this success have given rise to a kind of "political bubble" in which they believe they only have to bear the situation until the 2008 presidential election, at which point KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) will ride to victory and the blue sky will press down on the green lands below.
It is possible that the pan-blue camp will only be roused from this childish optimism when the pendulum has swung to the other extreme.
Over the past few years -- if you put aside for a moment a few relatively trivial events such as the offer of the gift of two pandas to Taipei -- we have received only callous pressure and petty actions from Beijing. But who among the many political figures in the pan-blue camp has actually stood up and criticized Beijing?
The most obvious example of this that springs to mind is how Beijing snapped up diplomatic relations with Senegal, one of our major diplomatic allies in Africa, forcing them to break relations with Taiwan, during then KMT chairman Lien Chan's (連戰) visit to China. This was like a slap in the face, but not even the tiniest response was heard from the pan-blue camp.
If they are willing to keep their lips sealed in the interests of the "favorable development" of cross-strait relations, it is no wonder that 40 percent of the electorate remains suspicious of them and believes they may sell Taiwan down the river if they are ever returned to power.
The insult meted out during Lien's visit was just the most prominent example. We can also see how Beijing has laid siege to Taiwan politically and economically, for example preventing it from participating in the International Pledging Conference on Avian and Human Influenza held in Beijing on Jan. 17 and 18. Is this what they mean by "placing their hopes in their Taiwanese compatriots?" The pan-blues cannot continue treating the electorate in this way.
If prominent intellectuals nurtured by the KMT find their policies unacceptable, how can the party expect the man on the street to accept it? It is true that there are those in the pan-blue camp that do business, study or cultivate personal relationships in China, but is it really possible that not one person is willing to stand up and say what needs to be said?
Is it really the case that the current cross-strait stalemate comes down to the incompetence and short-sightedness of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government, and that Beijing has done absolutely nothing worthy of criticism, resulting in the blue camp's complete silence over the past few years?
A related issue is the opposition's blanket obstruction of the arms procurement budget in the legislature. This not only wastes the counsel of all of those retired generals and all those think tank members, it is also done in the absence of a viable alternative to show the electorate what kind of budget would be reasonable, what kind of weapons are surplus to our requirements and what kind of weapons we could develop ourselves.
Is it only during presidential elections -- when the DPP government paints them as colluding with China to divest Taiwan of its military deterrent and sell us out -- that they are able to explain their case, to make everything clear.
Members of the pan-blue camp, you can always say no to Beijing, and it is only through following more moderate policies that you are going to win the support and respect of the electorate.
Tu Jenn-hwa is an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of National Development, National Taiwan University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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