In a gathering with Democratic Progressive Party supporters in Changhua County last Saturday, President Chen Shui-bian (
Chen's concerns are legitimate. But one question remains: What is the DPP administration doing in response to the pan-blue campaign? Recent events suggest that the government is slowly learning how to deal with it, but the battle is ruthless and ongoing.
Take, for example, Premier Su Tseng-chang's (蘇貞昌) comments on the agreement reached between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) at the cross-strait "economic forum" two weeks ago. Su said he would support the package of 15 initiatives announced by Chinese officials at the forum so long as they are beneficial to the Taiwanese people and do not compromise Taiwan's sovereignty.
The pro-China media seized upon Su's statement. Noting that the president had branded the KMT-CCP agreement "sugar-coated poison," several outlets said Su was not on the same page as his boss regarding cross-strait policy. In all the vitriolic excitement, one newspaper even borrowed the term "Russian Revisionism" — "Su Hsiu" (蘇修) in Chinese, also meaning "Su revises" -- to argue its case that "Su changed the president's remarks."
The Presidential Office was quick to rebut the existence of Su xiu and a rift between Su and Chen. Soon after on Tuesday, Su also made it clear that Chen was setting the tone on the nation's major policies. Swiftly and efficiently, the steam was taken out of the pro-China media's latest fixation.
The Presidential Office's quick response prevented this latest supposition from becoming accepted as fact. The repeated dissemination of scuttlebutt as fact is a device that has worked well for the pan-blues -- take the "1992 consensus," which for the past six years has been treated as an indisputable political reality by pan-blue politicians.
It all came to naught a couple of months ago, however, when KMT Legislator Su Chi (蘇起) finally came clean and admitted that he fabricated the term.
And so it goes on. Reporting on Chen's gathering with the party faithful on Saturday, a pro-China newspaper said on Monday that Chen had described the smearing of his family and the DPP administration as a "pan-blue intelligence war."
However, the Presidential Office's response on Monday afternoon said that Chen had never used the term "pan-blue intelligence war." The journalist who filed the report later admitted that he had made it up.
These and other examples well illustrate the extent to which Taiwan's pro-China media are willing to go to undermine the DPP administration and to score points for the pan-blue forces. The gloves are off.
Sometimes members of the DPP administration do or say things that give Chen's political opponents easy ammunition to attack Chen. It's time to get with the program and stay on message. Any hint of internal debate is a gift to the pro-China media and their pan-blue friends.
It is no secret that China wishes Chen's pro-localization regime to come to an end in 2008. The DPP administration can and must safeguard more room to maneuver -- it must strike back when it can, and let the truth be told.
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