Taiwan is a vibrant democracy. That has become obvious from the primary campaign for the presidential elections scheduled for Jan. 11 next year. Much is at stake: Taiwan’s future as a free and democratic country, which is under immense threat from its giant neighbor, the People’s Republic of China.
The people of Taiwan have worked hard to achieve their democracy, and are eager to fulfill the dream of being accepted by the international community as a full and equal member. How to move forward, and how fast, toward that goal has become a dividing line in the democratic camp: Which road is best for Taiwan?
On one side stands President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), who has carved out a trajectory of carefully moving toward Taiwan’s ultimate goals on the basis of gradual reforms, and — for now — an acceptance of the “status quo” across the Taiwan Strait.
However, this is a dynamic “status quo,” which aims to strengthen Taiwan’s democracy, and solidify its relations with like-minded countries that adhere to the same values of democracy and human rights.
Tsai’s moderate approach has won praise from the international community, in particular the US, Europe and other like-minded countries such as India, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
On the other side stands former premier and former Tainan mayor William Lai (賴清德), who advocates a faster pace and a more proactive approach in moving toward cementing Taiwan’s place in the international community as a free and independent nation.
Lai also favors faster implementation of reforms, particularly in the judicial system. Lai has broad support among the deeper-green part of Taiwan’s political spectrum.
What then is the best way forward?
Of course it is up to Taiwanese to make the ultimate decision, but as a lifelong friend of Taiwan who has been closely involved in the movement for human rights and democracy for many decades, I would like to humbly submit the following considerations:
First, I might mention that I know Tsai and Lai. Both are extremely dedicated people, and have a clear vision for Taiwan’s future and how to get there. Their love for Taiwan is unquestionable. The difference between the two is the pace of their approach.
Second, it is essential that those who support democracy and a free future for Taiwan remain united. If the pan-green camp is divided, this would open up the possibility of a win by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which would be a step backward and detrimental for the future of Taiwan and its people.
Third, the China threat is real. Through influence operations, military threats, economic measures and political intimidation, China will continue its efforts to isolate Taiwan internationally and attempt to force the nation into its unwelcome embrace.
Because of these considerations, it is essential for Tsai and Lai to resolve their differences and form a united team that would be strong enough to face the hurdles and immense pressures ahead.
A Tsai-Lai ticket headed by Tsai would be the formula that would have the highest probability of success. It would contain the elements of stability and continuity as represented by Tsai, and at the same time incorporate the promise of a new push and a more progressive approach, as represented by Lai.
Gerrit van der Wees is a former Dutch diplomat. From 1980 through 2016 he served as the editor of Taiwan Communique. Since 2012 he has taught the history of Taiwan at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.
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