Following the landslide victory by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in last year’s nine-in-one elections, there has been ample commentary and analysis of the outcome’s impact on cross-strait relations.
Some analysts have said that — as these were local elections — they were not a reflection on President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) cross-strait policies.
I disagree: These were indeed local elections, but the results reflected a widespread discontent with the lack of good governance at both the local and national level, anger at the lack of transparency and the chumminess with big business and a rejection of the president’s accommodating policies toward China.
However, it was not a vote against good relations with China. The DPP also favors good relations with China, but not at the expense of Taiwan’s economic and political independence.
The vote was a rejection of the way in which the Ma administration has approached relations with Beijing: going too far, too fast and undermining Taiwan’s sovereignty, freedom and democracy.
So, what is the best way forward?
Some pessimistic analysts predict that the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) loss, and a possible victory for the DPP in the presidential and legislative elections in January next year would put cross-strait relations “on hold,” or would increase the prospect of souring relations with the People’s Republic of China, leading to additional tensions in the area.
There I disagree too: I believe that this change of political landscape in Taiwan opens the possibility for a new beginning, as it brings to the fore a party that is more truly representative of Taiwanese.
The KMT came from China with Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) in 1949 and was often too steeped in its Chinese Civil War heritage.
The DPP does not carry this baggage, and can be trusted to defend the interests of Taiwanese as a whole.
However, a solution to cross-strait issues does require more than a new, and truly representative, ruling party in Taipei.
As argued in two excellent articles (“Washington’s obsolete Taiwan policy,” by Michael Turton in The Diplomat on Sunday, and “Debunking the myth of inevitability in the Taiwan Strait” by J. Michael Cole in Thinking Taiwan on Tuesday), it requires a new paradigm, a new way of addressing the Taiwan Strait issue.
It requires a new way of thinking in Beijing, whereby it ceases to perceive Taiwan as part of the old Chinese Civil War against the KMT, but starts to think of it as a new and friendly neighbor, with which it can build a constructive relationship.
The relation between the UK and the US comes to mind.
More than 200 years ago, Britain still claimed sovereignty over the US and fought the War of 1812, but now they are the best of friends and have a “special relationship.”
It also requires new policies in Washington and European capitals, where the current thinking is still too steeped in the old “one China” concept, imposed by the fact that in the 1970s there were two competing regimes vying to represent China.
Neither the Chinese Communist Party nor the KMT represented Taiwanese at the time. Taiwanese did not get full and fair representation until the transition to democracy in the early 1990s.
The fact that there is now a fully free and democratic Taiwan should be ample reason for the international community, including China, to move toward normalization of relations with the nation, so it can be a full and equal member of the international family. That would indeed lead to true and lasting stability across the Taiwan Strait.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
Over the past few years, migrant workers’ rights have improved in Taiwan, but there has not been a comparable improvement in protections for employers, who are faced with a range of challenges, such as family nurses mistreating patients or workers threatening to change brokers or demanding that employers change their jobs. Then there is the decrease in work standards. Migrant workers too often find the lure of the underground jobs market irresistible, are unaware of employment laws and regulations, or have found that National Immigration Agency (NIA) checks are lax, and as a result abscond. If this happens, what protections or
The Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC) has been giving daily COVID-19 updates for almost four months, and on several occasions when major developments have arisen, the news conferences have attracted large numbers of viewers. The entire nation is anxious about the pandemic, and interest in the latest news has become a part of daily life. Watching the center’s daily news conferences has become something of a national ritual. The pandemic has stabilized within Taiwan due to the admirable efforts of each person living in the nation conducting themselves with the utmost responsibility, and in certain cases making considerable sacrifices within their
This year marks the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II. In that war’s aftermath, novelist George Orwell produced two prophetic works. The first, Animal Farm, was published in August 1945; the second, Nineteen Eighty-Four, came out in June 1949. Both still ring true and cover a wide range of messages, including even how the mid-sized nation of Taiwan achieved its democracy and why it still maintains an outlier status in a COVID-19 world. With its full planetary scope, WWII left untold millions dead and injured, cities were destroyed and the future path of most nations was altered. New
United States Senator “Kit” Bond (R-MO) was a real leader on Asia policy during his time in Congress. Like most senators, he had a ready one-liner for every occasion. The one I never tired of hearing is “Well, looks like everything has been said. The problem is not everyone has said it.” It’s sort of like with US-China great power competition. There is not much new to say. This is especially true because it’s largely a story of what’s already happened: BRI, Made in China 2025, aggression in the South China Sea, provocations on the Indian border, cyber-hacks, erosion of “one country,