President Chen delivered a couple of speeches at the end of last month, elaborating on the necessity of including territorial definition in Taiwan's new constitution and the need to launch referendums on both the disposition of "transitional justice," especially as related to the KMT's stolen assets, and mandating the use of the name of Taiwan in place of Republic of China (ROC) in the nation's bid for UN membership.
Not unexpectedly, Chen's detractors ridiculed his speeches as lame attempts to divert public attention away from his alleged corruption.
Even among Chen's supporters, there is no shortage of those who would opine that he is either too late or too powerless to do anything toward achieving his latest initiatives.
But knee-jerk denigrations such as these are beside the point, given that what he is advocating fall into the category of either furthering the nation's democracy or enhancing nation's sovereignty, all civic duties of every Taiwanese.
Granted that Chen's position affords him the nation's "bully pulpit," albeit in a voice much weakened lately -- to signal the go-ahead, both external and internal factors would dictate that the heavy lifting has to be shared by all Taiwanese. The question of whether "he" can or can't accomplish them is therefore immaterial.
So is timing, given that the well-worn adage "better late than never" sounds more fitting than trite here.
What kept Chen from raising the subject of "transitional justice" previously -- except during campaigns -- stemmed from his failure to recognize the fact that a satisfactory resolution to this subject is paramount to long-term domestic tranquility. Now is as good a time as any to rectify this problem.
Moreover, the KMT's infamous looting of the nation has been repeatedly condemned as the culprit that poisons Taiwan's democracy today. It is also why the KMT is branded an oddity among political parties in democratic societies. These riches make it impossible to have a level playing field in Taiwan's politics. Removing this ill-gotten wealth from the KMT's coffers should not be delayed.
Under prodding from reporters, the US State Department reacted to Chen's speeches by reminding Chen that as far as Taiwan's territorial definition was concerned, he was still bound by a straitjacket and that there would be consequences should he make any rash move. But those warnings sound more like a broken record.
The people in Foggy Bottom continue to ignore that Taiwan's archaic Constitution -- which claims China and Mongolia as parts of the nation's territory -- has given the Taiwanese people a severe case of identity crisis which threatens to tear the country apart and halt its democratic progress.
Recent comments by a former Japanese defense chief identified the lack of internal consensus as the most pressing problem in Taiwan's national security.
He must have drawn that conclusion from the fact that the pan-blue coalition doesn't see China as a military threat and hence doesn't see the need for Taiwan to arm, that the military is at a loss as to who its enemy is and what land it is defending and that near-term political expediency often trumps long-term planning which is indispensable in building a nation's deterrence capabilities.
Akin to the conundrum of "putting the cart in front of the horse," the US' desire for Taiwan to arm both physically and psychologically appears increasingly unattainable without first shelving its long-standing policy of opposing inclusion of territorial definition in Taiwan's Constitution.
Perhaps contrary to common beliefs, the status of a "lame duck" president might offer some advantages for Chen. To wit, he no longer has to be mindful of re-election that would make him vulnerable to the sort of public tongue lashing, dished out by US President George W. Bush in the presence of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) barely three months before Taiwan's 2004 presidential election.
Chen might therefore have more wiggle room to promote Taiwan's sovereignty now than at anytime in the past.
These efforts to re-invigorate the nation's democratization will come to naught if Chen doesn't stop waffling. Should he be able to remain steadfast for the rest of his term, he would have at least weathered criticisms, set the direction and paved the way for his successors and all perhaps, generations of Taiwanese to finish the tasks he has initiated.
That legacy would eclipse anything that he could have hoped for with his earlier habit of vacillations.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with