The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is expected to pass new candidate nomination rules for the next legislative and presidential elections at its party congress on Saturday. As a result, those who have their eye on the 2012 presidential contest will need to come up with different strategies to optimize their chance of victory in the wake of the changing rules of the game.
A majority in the DPP favor selecting a presidential candidate solely on the basis of “public polls,” as the best way to avoid the previous internal splits that have resulted from combining a direct vote by registered party members and polling results.
Potential competitors who enjoy less national popularity have insisted on maintaining the mixed system. Former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) is the leading figure opposing any rule change and has also demanded a series of internal debates between potential candidates as an additional measure.
Faced with growing pressure for the DPP to elaborate on its policy toward China, other contenders such as former premier and presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) have thrown their hats into the ring even before the party primary gets under way.
Hsieh recently advocated a theory of “separate constitutional interpretation” as a political basis for the DPP to resume dialogue with the People’s Republic of China.
This was an elaboration of an earlier proposal he made that it might be possible to use the “constitutional one China” framework to define Taiwan’s status quo as “an independent Republic of China.”
Lu has come out in support of a so-called “1996 consensus” — the completion of the first direct presidential election — as her preferred manifestation of Taiwan’s de facto independence.
In addition to electoral concerns related to the presidential primary, Hsieh and Lu have also both expressed the need to redefine the “cross-strait consensus” as a result of political pressures from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Immediately consolidating his leadership over the KMT, following the “symbolic victory” of securing three seats in November’s five special municipality elections, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) launched a new campaign to force DPP leaders to accept the so-called “1992 consensus” as the legitimate political basis for cross-strait negotiations.
DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) once said that her party would “continue the cross-strait policies implemented by the former government if the DPP regains power in 2012.” Ma has taken advantage of that position to urge Tsai to accept the “1992 consensus” as the basis for KMT-CCP negotiations on the existing 15 agreements between Taiwan and China. Ma also erroneously suggested that both China and the US government accept the “1992 consensus,” despite Beijing having its own definition of the consensus and Washington never having recognized it as an element in its “one China” policy.
Despite the DPP’s official rejection of the “1992 consensus” as non-existent and simply a fabrication by former Mainland Affairs Council chief Su Chi (蘇起) in 2000, Ma’s maneuverings have sparked a political fire and a potential split within the DPP.
Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) also warned that if “the DPP refuses to accept the 1992 consensus, China might have to reconsider its economic policy toward Taiwan,” implying that cross-strait relations could be damaged were the DPP to disregard the “1992 consensus.”
This clearly shows that the KMT and CCP are working together to force the DPP to frame its debate over China policy in terms that refer to the “1992 consensus” and the “one China” principle.
How should the DPP react to such a challenge?
The party has three choices. The first is to accept the “1992 consensus,” but few DPP leaders are willing do so.
The second approach is to redefine the consensus that was reached between the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and ARATS in 1992. The administration of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) once used the term “1992 spirit” as a replacement for “1992 consensus” in late 2004, with the hope of resuming political talks with China.
Another example is Hsieh’s re-characterization of his earlier “constitutionally one China” formula into a more flexible phrase that accepts “separate constitutional interpretations with implicit acceptance of one China.” Both approaches have met with heavy criticism from within the pan-green camp and China may not want to deal with them either.
The last option is to be more patient and pragmatic in forging domestic consensus, thereby avoiding the need to jump into a potentially damaging debate over the “1992 consensus” before the presidential campaign starts.
If the DPP’s chances of winning the 2012 presidential election increase, Beijing will have to reach a new political understanding with the party. The two sides should increase communication through think tank channels or indirect conversations. It is still too early for the DPP to show its cards.
Liu Shih-chung is a senior research fellow at the Taipei-based Taiwan Brain Trust.
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