These past weeks, many have participated in a campaign calling for the removal of President Chen Shui-bian (
There have been several requests made to determine if Chen has violated the law, but no probes have been completed.
There may be more efforts in the months ahead to topple Chen, but the purpose is more to force the ruling party to remain on the defensive until election day in 2008 -- not necessarily to change the government now. We are seeing the beginning of campaigning for the next round of elections, though it already seems to be a poll that will result in one party holding the legislature and the executive.
It may well end up a more vigorous battle over national identity than ever before, a battle more open and messy and which may corrode the inclination of voters and politicians to support the ambiguous status quo.
China, which has not done well in getting what it wants out of Taiwan, is beginning to hope again. The US seems more nervous -- rightly -- about how this will play out.
In the midst of all the domestic political turbulence, the chairmen of the two main political parties -- Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairman Yu Shyi-kun -- have visited the US to spell out policies that might be of interest to Washington.
There is still a year and a half before the election for president is held. Personal stances may change, events in other parts of the world may impact on an important issue, or political party leaders might decide to change a policy. The presentations we hear now may change with all this, but the broad direction each party is taking will continue.
Last week, Yu stated that the only way China will ever become a responsible stakeholder in the world is by rising democratically. Taiwan is the first democratic Chinese society, and the one most likely to influence China's democratic development.
If Taiwan were to take a pro-China approach, however, not only would the power balance in the region face a great challenge, but also the security and development of all democratic forces in East Asia would be affected.
The DPP is based in democratic principles and naturally stands on the side of Western democratic countries, which is not the same as the KMT, which envisages Taiwan's future more in terms of Chinese expectations. If the latter is elected in 2008, this could weaken Taiwan-Japan relations.
In March, Ma said that his party would stick to the "five noes": no declaration of independence; no change to Taiwan's name, flag or anthem; no writing about "two states" in the Constitution; no referendum to change the status quo of cross-strait relations; and no abolishing of the National Unification Council.
He added the "five dos." First, he would resume negotiations on the basis of the (fictional) "1992 consensus" -- one China, with different interpretations on what this meant. He would negotiate a peace agreement with China that would include confidence-building measures. He would facilitate economic exchanges leading eventually to the creation of a common market. And he would increase Taiwan's international space based on pragmatism instead of a zero-sum game.
He said he would also facilitate cultural and educational exchanges, such as allowing Chinese students to attend universities in Taiwan.
The "five noes" and the "five dos," according to Ma, could take care of cross-strait relations.
Comparing the two presentations is difficult. Yu focused on Taiwan's potential in describing the path it could take (with help, of course) in moving China toward democracy -- an important objective for the US and other states. He did not intend to raise a wide number of issues in cross-strait or bilateral matters, at least not for the moment.
Continuous attention to Taiwan's internal struggles, however, makes decisions difficult to arrive at. The lack of high-level and open dialogue makes it more difficult still, not only for the ruling party but the opposition as well.
Ma, while covering a range of matters, focused on one broad issue -- cross-strait relations. The first broad grouping of concerns involved problems to be inherited from the Chen administration; the second involved Taiwan-China dialogue itself. Regardless of how the issues play out, a Ma presidency would discover quite quickly that China will be obstructive on no small number of contentious matters.
With regard to US-Taiwan ties, there remains a need to stay abreast of changes in people and issues on both sides that might impact on that relationship.
A bilateral dialogue keeping both sides aware of domestic changes in the pre-election period will be helpful for both sides, as the presidential campaign threatens to muddy the waters considerably. At the same time, the debate on national identity will be intense, and the results very important, not just for the people of Taiwan, but for the US, China and most of East Asia.
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