It is always encouraging to see members of the international community pay attention to Taiwan, whose travails as it navigates the rough seas of its relations with China are often conveniently ignored for the sake of “larger” considerations.
Given the potential ramifications of tomorrow’s presidential elections for regional security and Taipei’s relations with Beijing, it is unsurprising that an army of foreign reporters and academics would be parachuted into Taiwan to observe its rambunctious democracy at work.
Equally welcome is the arrival of international observers who have been invited by local organizations to monitor the elections to ensure that the process is fair and does justice to the sacrifices made by previous generations of Taiwanese who, for decades, did not have the privilege of selecting their leader.
In a highly charged campaign marked by scandals — from the possible falsification of evidence used in allegations against Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) to claims that intelligence agencies engaged in illegal surveillance against her — the presence of neutral electoral monitors from abroad could provide a much-needed dose of sobriety to the whole affair. Or it should have.
The problem is that the organizations behind the invitations extended to the international monitors have at times appeared more interested in underscoring which candidate they hope will win rather than making sure that the electoral process remains transparent and is not tampered with.
One could argue that such an outcome was inevitable, a consequence of the vast resource disparity that exists between the two principal political parties involved in the elections. Despite claims to the contrary, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) remains one of the wealthiest political entities in the world, turning Tsai into a bit of a David against the KMT Goliath, an imbalance that has only been exacerbated by the overt support given the KMT by Beijing, big business, institutional investors and even some elements within the White House.
As a result, whether it was intended or not, the International Committee for Fair Elections in Taiwan (ICFET), which counts the likes of DPP legislator Chai Trong-rong (蔡同榮) as its executive chairman, has come across as pretty green.
Not to be bested, the pan-blue side recently announced that it had invited its own international monitors, a group that includes former American Institute in Taiwan director Douglas Paal.
Anyone who accuses the minds behind the ICFET of being too green and therefore partial should look at the political affiliations of the Cross-Strait Interflow Prospect Foundation, the think tank that invited Paal and others to come to Taiwan to observe the elections. Its chairman, Louis Tzen (鄭文華), is closely affiliated with the KMT’s in-house think tank, the National Policy Foundation.
Unfortunately for the majority of international monitors who did come to Taiwan as impartial observers, the politicization of the groups risks undermining their credibility. This, in turn, could make it more difficult for their findings to be taken seriously and could give rise to accusations that they are taking sides in the election — especially if serious irregularities were to be uncovered by the observer groups.
Whether they knew it or not, international observers have been sucked into the vortex of green-blue politics in Taiwan. Through no fault of theirs, they arrive here facing a credibility handicap, victims of a political system whose impartiality is oftentimes observed in the breach.
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
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
RSS