What an intriguing coincidence.
After years of pan-blue-camp stonewalling in the legislative Procedure Committee over the arms purchase bill, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairman Raymond Burghardt visits Taiwan in the month before legislative elections and meets, among other leaders, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
Within the week, the KMT-dominated committee relents and sends the arms bill to the legislative floor, a move almost equivalent to passing the legislation.
We were not privy to the conversation between Ma and Burghardt, but the timing of the two events -- combined with Burghardt's lecturing of President Chen Shui-bian (
The US cannot be blamed for preferring one presidential ticket over another -- or one party dominating the legislature and not the other. But here is a question that US officials can ask themselves: Is the long-term damage that can be inflicted on Taiwan's national -- and regional -- stability and core democratic structures and practices from one-sided intervention worth the short-term political gain?
When Burghardt criticized Chen -- however undiplomatic his wording -- even Chen supporters could see beyond the reproachful tone. They could appreciate that Burghardt probably meant well, even if certain superiors at the State Department and the White House decidedly do not.
What these allies might not appreciate is the lack of parity in Washington's dealings with the KMT. Chen, for all his faults, has been scapegoated for most of his time as president over the obstructiveness of not only Beijing apparatchiks but also pro-China elements in the pan-blue camp.
And because most US officials are serenely ignorant of Taiwanese domestic politics and do not read Chinese, they do not understand that the balance of KMT efforts in the legislature has been to grind the Chen administration to a halt -- even while directly insulting the US -- and to hell with ordinary people caught up in the circus.
The pan-blue camp continues to smear government agencies as partisan without so much as a logical argument or evidence. The latest agency to take another hit is the Central Election Commission, described by KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (
The US has been steadfast in its silence over the KMT's agenda of discrediting administrative systems. It therefore must be asked if anyone among serving US officials other than AIT Director Stephen Young has requisite understanding of these problems.
It would have been gratifying if Burghardt had publicly warned Ma and Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (
But no. None of this is publicly accountable.
We can only pray that this is not the kind of governance and leadership that Washington would wish for Taiwan -- or tolerate in the name of expediency.
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