On May 27, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will choose a new chairman. Regardless of who is elected, he should initiate a change in the party’s cross-strait policy to pave the way for a return to power in 2016. At the same time, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) should acknowledge public opinion trends in Taiwan and engage in active exchanges with the DPP to perpetuate stable cross-strait development.
In its report on this year’s presidential election, the DPP said the influence of China on the election clearly tended toward the economic agenda, and that the connection between cross-strait relations and economic issues was one of three main reasons behind the party’s defeat.
The report stressed that in future elections, the China factor would continue to intensify. It therefore suggested that the DPP sustain a pragmatic and moderate line on cross-strait policy, initiate substantive bilateral exchanges with China and dispel the stereotypical impression of the party as anti-Chinese.
Former DPP chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) also issued a statement saying that the economic scare card the party played during the campaign had undeniably affected the electoral outcome. She said in no ambiguous terms that the DPP must face harsh realities, namely, that the party needs the trust of the public if it wants to deal with China from a position of strength. Her suggestion was that the party establish a code of conduct and a framework for interaction so that members can understand China by interacting with it, and in the process find new ways of resolving cross-strait issues.
According to the report and to Tsai, the next chairman will need to adjust the party’s cross-strait policies to have a chance of regaining government power. If that person fails to promptly initiate a process to build and further a cross-strait policy consensus, it will be difficult for the party to avoid Chinese obstruction in 2016 and it would also become difficult to win the public’s trust.
To make things even clearer, the signal sent by voters in the election was that they support peaceful cross-strait development, but not peaceful cross-strait unification. Some voters are willing to accept a “2008 consensus” — that there is a so-called “1992 consensus” with each party having its own interpretation of what that consensus means — and take a more ambiguous approach to handling the “one China” issue. In other words, the public wants a cross-strait relationship somewhere in between war and peace, between unification and independence.
A majority of Taiwanese supported President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) re-election not because they wanted to abandon national core values and interests, such as sovereignty, democracy, human rights and freedom, but because they hoped for continued stability in and development of cross-strait relations.
In terms of national identity and the future of the nation, the values of the vast majority of Taiwanese directly contradict the Chinese goal of peaceful unification. Ma’s four years in office have coincided with the fastest growth in Taiwanese identity, while opposition to unification and support for independence have increased more during his administration than under the DPP’s eight years in power.
When adjusting its cross-strait policy, the DPP will encounter criticism from its traditional supporters, but the new party chairman must display firm leadership and boldness of vision in order to gain majority Taiwanese support.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has in the past undergone a similar policy transformation. On Feb. 14, 2006, it published an advertisement in the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister paper) in which it stressed that Taiwanese independence was one of the public’s options. In 2007, the KMT removed unification from its party charter, included Taiwan in it, and also pointed out that Taiwan is the Republic of China, that it is a sovereign country and its future should be determined by solely by its 23 million citizens.
Finally, the Chinese government should probably realize that the “2008 consensus” will not be the foundation for continued peaceful cross-strait development and that dialogue between the DPP and the CCP will be key.
Another DPP government term served without dialogue, mutual trust and understanding is certain to deter the progress of cross-strait interactions. Future cross-strait negotiations and dialogue will require DPP understanding and agreement, or at least the absence of a DPP boycott.
A final political solution to the cross-strait issue will require the support of the DPP and its public support of more than 45 percent of voters.
Tung Chen-yuan is a professor at National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of Development Studies
Translated by Perry Svensson
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US