Western academics being told they deserve condemnation for interfering in a country’s internal affairs after they criticize what they believe might be an abuse of power by the government is something that is usually associated with China. When US government officials or professors accuse China of abusing human rights by arresting dissenters or squelching opposition with supposedly “legal” means, Chinese authorities either refer to them as ignorant foreigners who don’t understand the specific requirements of running the Middle Kingdom, or they accuse them of seeking to denigrate China for political purposes.
The Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan has typically demonstrated a much more amiable attitude to Western officials and academics. After all, the ROC and the US are long-time friends and it is unlikely Taiwan would still be independent if it hadn’t been for the US. That’s why it is all the more disquieting that under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), Taiwan is beginning to sound so similar to the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
In an open letter to the KMT administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) first published in Chinese on April 10 and in English on April 11, 34 foreign academics, including former American Institute in Taiwan chairman Nat Bellocchi, questioned the timing of a probe into 36,000 confidential state documents that allegedly went missing under the former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration. The case of the allegedly missing documents, which is being investigated by the Control Yuan and could lead to criminal charges against many DPP luminaries who would play an important role in the upcoming presidential election, was announced the day before former premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), who is one of those being investigated, announced his bid for the presidency.
The foreign academics couldn’t help but suspect this investigation of being a political ploy — the KMT using the judiciary to influence the elections. In the open letter, they expressed sincere concern that this could erode Taiwan’s democracy.
However, in its sharp response to the letter, the Presidential Office sounded no different from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Presidential Office spokesman Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) called it “unfair” for foreigners who knew little about the situation to “recklessly interfere in and criticize” the legal means the Ma government is using to address the matter. Basically, Lo called Bellocchi, University of Miami professor June Teufel Dreyer, Stephen Yates, a former deputy assistant for national security to former US vice president Dick Cheney, and many other experts on Taiwan nothing but “ignorant foreigners.”
Bruce Linghu (令狐榮達), head of the Department of North American Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was more insidious. He insinuated that Bellocchi was a sick old man who “seldom goes out nowadays,” suggesting he was not well enough to know what he was doing. KMT Legislator John Chiang (蔣孝嚴) said he did not believe the letter was written in English, and that few of the signatories could have read the original Chinese-language version before signing it. However, a majority of the signatories have denied this, saying that it was drafted in English and they did have a part in writing it.
Chiang went further, sounding even more like the CCP thugs he seems intent on emulating, accusing Bellocchi of interfering in Taiwan’s internal affairs and saying he had a political bias toward the DPP.
It appears that the KMT, like the CCP, can’t differentiate true concern for the fate of democracy or the well-being of Taiwanese with a personal attack on the party. Like the CCP, the KMT takes any criticism personally and counterattacks with whatever low-handed means it can muster. The KMT is truly getting back to its roots, with Chiang in particular sounding like his authoritarian grandfather.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS