The political infighting started by the resignation of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Yu Shyi-kun and the negative effect this had on presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) campaign has sabotaged DPP unity.
Initially, Yu offered to step down on Sept. 21 for allegedly misusing his special allowance fund.
However, after his failure to convince other DPP leaders to accept a "Normal Country" draft resolution that "the nation should correct its name and write a new constitution as soon as possible," Yu resigned and accused other DPP big shots -- including President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) -- of chickening out on matters of name rectification and on rewriting the Constitution.
Yu expressed his dissatisfaction over a modified version accepted by all other leaders which suggested that the nation should "accomplish rectification of `Taiwan' as soon as possible and write a new constitution."
Yu's maneuvering is aimed at furthering his own personal interests at the expense of the party's effort to retain power in the next presidential election.
First, Yu's more radical approach would further endanger US-Taiwan relations.
The US has reiterated its warning to Chen that his plans to hold a referendum on using the name "Taiwan" to join the UN is an apparent move to unilaterally change the cross-strait "status quo" and is therefore a violation of US policy and Chen's commitment to not change Taiwan's national title hold a independence referendum.
In response to US pressures, Chen has argued that the referendum does not amount to changing the national title or seeking independence.
Using the name "Republic of China" would have violated his "four noes" pledge instead, he said. Chen is well aware of the seriousness of his "four noes" pledge.
But if the DPP had passed the original version of the resolution proposed by Yu and his supporters, it would have put Chen in a dire situation.
Not to mention that with Chen taking over the DPP chairmanship, it would have been very hard for him to justify his stance while reacting to US pressures.
He would have no choice but to implement the party resolution of changing the national title to "Taiwan."
Second, Yu's insistence would also have had a negative impact on Hsieh's campaign which centers on reconciliation and coexistence with China.
In order to win over swing voters, Hsieh has introduced a moderate and bipartisan strategy as a way of broadening his appeal.
Endorsing Chen's referendum agenda has displayed Hsieh's strong determination to safeguard the notion of "Taiwan-centric" consciousness.
Hsieh has also recognized the importance of writing a new constitution in the near future in accordance with constitutional procedure.
Therefore, the new resolution passed by party representatives will have a huge influence on Hsieh's policy.
Judging by how the international community -- and especially the US -- would likely have responded to Yu's version of "one resolution," it is necessary for Hsieh to stick to his guns.
Finally and most importantly, it is Hsieh who won the DPP primary and obtained the presidential nomination.
What made Yu's resolution even less legitimate is the fact that he lost to Hsieh by a wide margin in the primary.
Why should a winner of the primary have accepted a resolution manipulated largely by a loser?
The whole fiasco must stop now.
To win the support of the majority, the DPP must stand firm on guarding Taiwan's independent sovereignty and demonstrate responsibility and unity.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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.
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