In a day -- in Taiwan and in the US -- apparently bipartisan unity has been achieved for higher causes. In Taiwan, it took the form of a joint declaration by party leaders pledging speedy measures to revive the economy. In the US, a grief-stricken US Congress gave its president unanimous support to fight against terrorism with US$40 billion funding and an authorization to "use all necessary and appropriate force." However, a closer examination reveals while the US has truly accomplished national solidarity, the selfishness and egotism of Taiwanese politicians makes national solidarity virtually impossible.
Just three days after the horrifying attacks against the US, the US Congress approved a fund that is twice what was asked for by President Bush, and overwhelmingly approved a resolution authorizing a fight against terrorism.
National solidarity was being shown everywhere else in the US. On Friday, four former US presidents: Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and George Bush Sr, attended a national memorial service at which President George W. Bush spoke. In fact, just a few hours after the tragic attacks, Clinton made an appeal for the country to support Bush. Even Al Gore, President Bush's old election rival who lost by an unprecedented close margin, drove hours from Canada to attend the memorial service.
Back here in Taiwan, things are entirely different. Just hours before the meeting of the party leaders, PFP Chairman James Soong (
Soong finally decided to attend, but only to turn the event into a news conference for himself. Of all possible times and places, Soong chose this one to explain about his meetings with President Chen Shui-bian (
Soong did not forget to stab the KMT in the back to try neutralize any possible credit his former party might have garnered for hosting the meeting. Soong said some KMT leaders had cast aspersions about his motives for meeting with the president. KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
Any hope for unity was lost when Soong began to criticize the content of the joint declaration before the ink of his signature dried. This is because the declaration calls on the government and opposition parties to resume negotiation based on the "result" of the "1992 conference," carefully avoiding the use of the word "1992 consensus." This is because the Chen Shui-bian administration and the DPP refuse to acknowledge the existence of such a consensus, under which supposedly the two sides had agree to the "one China" principle. Not long ago, Soong condemned the New Party for promoting rapid unification. Yet even the New Party agreed to the wording of the declaration, so why was Soong now taking an even more extreme position?
As for the KMT, any credit earned for holding the meeting was wasted by its refusal to invite the Taiwan Solidarity Union. Wasn't cross-party unity supposed to be the main theme of the meeting and declaration?
While Taiwan has certainly not suffered an attack as devastating as Tuesday's tragedies in the US, the country is nevertheless at a major crossroad. Any slip-ups could result in prolonged political chaos and economic depression. This country simply cannot afford the kind of selfishness that politicians have been displaying..
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
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
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS