The Chinese are good at political calculations, and they are particularly adept at division and subtraction. When the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) started to rule Taiwan, the party first divided the Taiwanese into two groups, luring one group to help it defend its regime. Today, Beijing has taken care of the KMT, and is now planning to cause division within the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Since the DPP is unable to stop China from playing its tricks, the party’s only choice is to respond in kind and to avoid the Chinese trap. However, some politicians are incapable of keeping their mouths shut, and they love to make stupid comments that they believe to be clever, thus falling into the trap.
On April 8, former DPP premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) said that the party should review its failed China policies of the past and he also asked rhetorically how the public’s interests would be protected if the DPP were unable to regain power. His remarks may have been appealing and moving, but they are seriously flawed when applied to the debate over China policy.
First of all, Hsieh’s statement that “our past policies have failed” was ambiguous, because it was unclear whether he was implying that the policies were ineffective, or that they were the reason that the DPP failed to win the presidential elections in 2008 and last year.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) never accepted Beijing’s “one China” policy and former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) never accepted the so-called “1992 consensus.” Despite that, they were able to develop cross-strait exchanges while maintaining that Taiwan was an independent and sovereign state. Such a China policy cannot be said to be a failure.
If Hsieh thinks that the DPP’s China policy is a failure because the party was defeated in the presidential elections, he has oversimplified people’s voting behavior. In addition, if the DPP’s China policy has failed, that means that the KMT’s China policy, which entails selling out Taiwan’s sovereignty, has succeeded. Does using this as a standard for determining whether the DPP’s China policy has been successful not imply that the DPP must work even harder than the KMT at selling out Taiwan for its China policy to be successful?
Without question, if the DPP wants to remain viable, it must not violate its core values by following a defeatist line. The DPP regaining power would help protect Taiwanese sovereignty, but there is no reason for the party to sacrifice national sovereignty to regain power.
More than half of Taiwanese refuse to accept Chinese annexation, and this is what provides the strongest support for rejecting a surrender to China. Late president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) told former US ambassador Walter McConaughy that any government trying to hold peace talks with the Chinese Communist Party would create social turmoil, and that such a government was doomed to fail.
If the DPP really wants to protect the public’s interests, even though it is not currently the ruling party, it should focus on mobilizing a majority of the public to restrain the pro-unification camp. If it must sacrifice the public’s interests to regain power, it will lose its raison d’etre.
James Wang is a political commentator.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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
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
RSS