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
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