The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and China shared similar views on the nine-in-one elections last week. They both tried to dismiss a link between the rout suffered by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) China policy. The rarely seen agreement exemplifies that the DPP remains caught in an awkward position as far as cross-strait relations are concerned, as it always will be.
Under the orders of DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) — the most likely DPP candidate for the 2016 presidential election after the party scored its unprecedented victory in the election — DPP Secretary-General Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) wasted no time in flying to Washington the next day with a message that the election should not be seen as a defeat for the cross-strait relations policies of the Ma administration, because the issue was not debated in the campaign.
The DPP’s view was different from the mainstream analyses that the electoral outcome was primarily a result of the “China factor” at play in the growth of skepticism among Taiwanese — especially the younger generations — over greater economic integration with China championed by the Ma administration, but was virtually identical to that held by Beijing that Ma’s handling of domestic issues was more to blame for the KMT’s defeat in the election than his pro-China stance.
Likely to return to power in 2016 with its capability to handle cross-strait relations being viewed with suspicion by Washington — which was believed to have played a part in the DPP’s defeat in 2012 — the reason why the DPP tried to play down the China factor in the election results was understandable.
When Tsai was running for president and visiting Washington to explain her cross-strait policy position to US officials, an unnamed US official told the Financial Times that Tsai “left us with distinct doubts about whether she is both willing and able to continue the stability in cross-strait relations the region has enjoyed in recent years,” which was seen as a blow to Tsai’s chances.
The DPP’s interpretation of the elections could be seen as an olive branch delivered to Beijing to help pave the way for future interactions. Clearly it was an attempt to show that if the party regains power in 2016, it would be a rational player in dealing with the nation’s relations with China, rather than handling cross-strait issues according to partisan or ideological politics, as the DPP administration led by former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) did. It also aimed to imply that a new DPP administration would not totally repudiate the cross-strait policies of the Ma government.
Signs emerged before the election that Beijing had allowed leeway for dialogue with the opposition camp when the cross-strait relationship enters the post-Ma era, probably because it had predicted the KMT’s rout in the election.
While Beijing explicitly stated its hope prior to the poll that every candidate be committed to the so-called “1992 consensus,” it did not go further by warning about the consequences of not adhering to the principle, as it did in 2012. That may have been because the elections were only at the local level, a level at which China adopts a more flexible stance to manage cross-strait relations. Another reason that cannot be ignored is that Beijing, which has been consistently studying the state of Taiwan’s public opinion, is adjusting the way it approaches Taiwan after the Sunflower movement in March and April showed widespread Taiwanese anxiety over China and the recent events in Hong Kong further fostered a change in the attitudes of Taiwanese youth toward China.
The DPP has learned its lesson from 2012, so it was eager to address the “distrust” the US has in the party, but it seemed that it did not get the message people sent via their ballots if Wu’s statement was truly the party’s take on the election. The DPP’s awkwardness in managing cross-strait issues has always been because it always puts political calculation ahead of people.
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