On Sunday President Chen Shui-bian (
This was a grave political error.
If Chen were only a party chairman, his remarks could be dismissed as campaign rhetoric and not be taken seriously.
But as he is also the president, the effect is far more damaging.
The election dispute far from warrants a state of emergency, and there seems to be a conflict between Chen's role as president and as Democratic Progressive Party chairman in this case.
Chen's suggestion that martial law was possible should never have been aired.
Fortunately, he subsequently announced that martial law would never be declared during his term, thus defusing a political disaster.
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf recently declared a state of emergency over election-related matters. This radical maneuver not only failed to solve any problems, it also led to national protests and international censure.
Pakistan's reputation was badly damaged and opposition leaders Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif seized the opportunity to garner support.
Musharraf's desperate measures did not grant him the absolute power of martial law. Instead, his actions decimated his public support and destabilized the country.
The Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) period of extended rule under martial law is infamous. For Chen to consider declaring martial law, just when the government is organizing 20th anniversary celebrations of the lifting of martial law, is anything but a wise decision.
"Martial law" is a term that carries very bad connotations.
Declaring martial law would not only damage Taiwanese democracy, but also do little to advance Chen's agenda.
It is hard to estimate what such an act would cost Taiwan, in the long and in the short term, domestically and internationally. But a declaration of martial law would almost certainly amount to digging a political grave.
In the aftermath of the shooting of Chen and Vice President Annette Lu (
In the end, using the one-stage or two-stage voting procedure in upcoming elections is an administrative and political issue and should be resolved through administrative and political means. There is no need to escalate the situation.
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
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
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
RSS