With the presidential election and voting on the two UN referendums almost upon us, the public must not only choose a leader but also decide whether either or both of the referendums will pass.
Neither the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) nor the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) can withdraw their sponsored referendums -- nor should they -- because doing so could mean losing votes in the presidential election.
In fact, the KMT doesn't even have to launch a boycott. This time, it can just remain silent and its supporters will follow the precedent of the legislative elections and refrain from voting in the referendums, thus invalidating them.
The DPP's original plan was to use the UN referendum bid to suggest that KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) doesn't love Taiwan. That way, even if the referendums were to fail, it would still be beneficial for the DPP. Unfortunately, the blow suffered by the DPP in the legislative polls was too heavy and the UN referendum bid no longer commands as much leverage in the presidential election.
If the UN referendums fail, China will turn on its propaganda machine and the international community will think that the people of Taiwan support unification with China. In an op-ed piece in the Liberty Times (Taipei Times' sister publication) on Sept. 2 last year, I proposed that the DPP call on its supporters to support both UN referendums to guarantee that at least one of them passes.
After the DPP's defeat in the legislative elections, this proposal is even more relevant.
The KMT proposed a referendum on returning to the UN using the name "Republic of China" (ROC), or "Taiwan," or any other practical title that would uphold the country's dignity.
Except for the suggestive word "returning," the KMT-backed referendum is not contradictory in any significant degree to the DPP-proposed referendum on joining the UN using the name "Taiwan." Supporting both referendums doesn't violate any core DPP values.
DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) has proposed that both the pan-green and pan-blue camps support both referendums. This shows his serious concern for Taiwan's future.
If Ma refuses the proposal, he might lose supporters.
If Ma were to agree to Hsieh's proposal, it would improve the public's impression of him. But if the referendum were to pass, most of the credit would go to Hsieh. The situation is different than when the UN referendums were first proposed, and making this concession will get the public's attention and benefit Hsieh.
If Ma did win the presidential election, either of the two UN referendums would act as a restraint on him from pursuing eventual unification.
This reasoning shows that supporting both referendums would not harm Hsieh. However, this does not constitute a political conspiracy. It is instead conducive to Taiwan's future, and thus hard for Ma to turn down.
If the DPP and the KMT join forces to support both referendums and make them both pass, the domestic and international views on Taiwan's sovereignty would be clarified. Even if China went on a rampage as a result, there's not much the US could do about it.
The KMT would be forced to return to the pro-localization ground. Although the DPP has lost an opportunity to put the KMT in its place, it is also being pressured to change its tactics as a result of facing a decisive battle with the KMT on domestic political issues.
Only by transforming and focusing on domestic politics will the DPP be able to tackle the new single-member district, two-vote electoral system and maybe even turn the current troubles into a presidential election win.
Jason Liu is a professor at the Department of Chemical Engineering at the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology.
Translated by Ted Yang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS