The International Democrat Union (IDU) meeting three years ago was held in Berlin and the city's mayor gave a dinner party for participants in the City Hall. This year the IDU meet in Wash-ington and delegates were guests at a White House dinner hosted by US President George W. Bush. And while most of the political party leaders attending the meeting three years ago were in the opposition in their countries, many of them have since won elections, such as those from the US, Norway, Spain, Denmark, Sri Lanka, Portugal and Australia.
Only a handful of them -- such as KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
Hence, the former leader of the UK's Conservative Party, William Hague, who also served as chairman of the IDU for the past three years, said rightists around the world were making progress and predicted that the future belongs to the Right.
The past decade was an era of left-of-center parties. Former US president Bill Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and former French prime minister Lionel Jospin appear to have become the four pillars of left-of-center rule. But now two of the pillars have fallen and the "third way" is going out of fashion. Right-of-center parties finally have a reason to celebrate. In Washing-ton, Lien and Smith both expressed their firm determination to snatch back political power.
However, blind faith in the "pendulum theory" or global trends cannot bring them back to power. Moreover, every nation faces a different situation. Just because Bush was successful does not necessarily mean Lien or Smith can be. Jospin's weaknesses are not necessarily the same as Blair's or President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁). The KMT and the British Conservative Party are daydreaming if they think they can ride the world trend to victory.
The Conservative Party lost power because it had been
positioned as -- or had performed like -- a "party in the past tense." When the majority of British voters were concerned about public services, Conservatives were harping on about the sovereignty problem involved in the launch of the euro. The party's policies did not reflect the public's needs.
Only after a second defeat to the Labour Party last year did the Conservative Party finally learn its lesson. First, the party had to forget its glorious history and second, it had to echo the voice of the general public. Smith recently started speaking out for the weak and adopted more caring policies. A think tank was set up to transform the party. These are the concrete actions stemming from the lessons the Conservatives have learned.
Hague even called on Conservative Party members to fight the Labour Party on its own turf. He obviously intends to learn from Blair's success and create a "New Conservative Party."
When left-of-center parties got the upper hand in the 1990s, they labeled themselves as the "new Left" to differentiate themselves from the traditional Left. Clinton said he was a New Democrat and Blair said he was from the New Labor Party. But what is new in the new Left is not just slogans or party images, but also policies and platforms. Similarly, the right-of-center parties have risen recently under the banner of the new Right. Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" is the "third way" of his Republican Party.
Although Taiwan's political arena is not divided into Left and Right, the KMT is facing a situation very similar to the Conservatives in the UK. After attending the IDU meeting, Lien and Smith apparently felt the momentum of a great leap forward for the Right. But whether or not the Conservatives can transform into a "New Conservative Party" and the KMT into a "New KMT" will be crucial tests for the two leaders.
Otherwise, in the words of a British commentator, the Washington IDU meeting would be, at best, a "collective psychotherapy" for those rightist party leaders who lost power.
Wang Chien-chuang is president of The Journalist magazine.
Translated by Jackie Lin
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS