The visit of Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) and the events surrounding it have brought a fundamental change in Taiwan’s political scene.
It goes beyond the advance in cross-strait peace claimed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government and its pan-blue allies, and beyond the pan-green opposition’s accusations that the government is leaning too close to China. What we are seeing now is a new line of thinking on freedom — or the lack of it.
Over the past decade, political parties have focused on the issue of national identity — on whether Taiwan should be independent or united with China. But the pro-unification pan-blue camp and the pro-independence pan-green camp have been unable to convince one another of the merits of their positions.
Although Taiwan has had several democratic elections, politicians still mobilize and motivate supporters through manipulation and the demonizing of opponents. This has created an almost unbridgeable rift. Agitation and negative campaigning has led to the public losing confidence in politics and politicians in general. With the blue and green camps mired in mutual accusations of selling out Taiwan and corruption, there is no room for the neutral voter or new elector.
The ARATS visit brought this situation to the fore once again. With the blue and green camps attacking each other’s positions, clashes broke out between agitated crowds and security forces. Politicians of both camps sought the limelight by putting on performances, while biased media outlets distorted their reporting to fit political standpoints.
Chen sought to gain whatever benefits he could from Taiwan’s political rift. However, just as his visit was drawing to a close, and with bloody clashes around the Grand Hotel reaching a climax, a new social force was quietly taking shape.
A group of students and academics linked up via the Internet to launch a silent vigil, one quite different in form and purpose from the noisy mobilizations of the blue and green parties.
Their goals are very simple: Criticize police for acting outside their authority and infringing on freedom of speech in the name of security; demand that the government admit to and apologize for its errors; and call for amendments to the Assembly and Parade Law (集會遊行法) where the law conflicts with freedom of expression.
The students are straightforward, sincere and deserve to be taken seriously. These are people who originally gave politics the cold shoulder and who are sick and tired of the endless war of words between pro-unification and pro-independence forces. During the overextension of police authority during Chen’s visit, the students saw the ugly face of the abuse of government power. They saw how the police were selective in approving applications for assembly, how they banned the display of the Republic of China flag in specified areas, how they gratuitously marched into a record shop and ordered the management to stop playing certain music.
To the protesters, all of these actions exceeded the boundaries of law enforcement.
The protesters’ agenda indicates that a new generation has appeared with its own way of thinking. The axis of political debate in Taiwan may gradually move away from the struggle between unification and independence forces, which the younger generation finds meaningless, toward a fight for deeper democracy and civil liberties.
Politicians should recognize the sincerity of this movement instead of smearing it. Any party that fails to recognize the shift that is taking place risks being sidelined and swept away.
Jack Wu is a doctoral student in the Department of Political Science at National Taiwan University.Translated by Julian Clegg
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers