President Chen Shui-bian (
In recent years, there have been frequent reports that Taiwan engages in dollar diplomacy and the public is upset about it. When the DPP was the opposition party, it often criticized the KMT for its "sucker diplomacy," but after coming to power, it has continued to follow in the KMT's footsteps, writing one fat check after another.
Obviously, despite the transfer of power two years ago, foreign policy has not changed. The reason for the lack of change isn't merely casual acceptance of old routines, but rather that there have been no significant changes in Taiwan's diplomatic situation. Unless the party in power stops caring about the number of allies that recognize Taiwan, heavy foreign aid spending is unavoidable.
Since both the ruling and opposition parties have engaged in "sucker diplomacy" and the opposition has increased its supervision of the foreign aid budget, why has the opposition chosen this moment to suddenly raise its voice and criticize Chen's performance abroad? In part, I fear, their criticism is related to comments made by the president while abroad.
Although Chen called his African trip "a journey of humanitarian concern," in fact he gave people quite a different impression. The speeches he delivered during the trip conveyed the impression that his real concern wasn't with our allies at all, but rather with domestic political problems. Less than four days after setting off, Chen blasted the opposition parties, saying that he would soon set in motion a cross-party "alliance for national stabilization" and remarking that the opposition alliance is "following a dead-end path and has little life left in it."
These remarks from the president increased the tension between the ruling and opposition parties. During the president's travels abroad, his focus should be on our allies. Everyone is now curious as to why he chose to make such critical and inflammatory statements while overseas.
Since Chen relentlessly tweaked political nerves back home during his trip, his diplomatic agenda was overshadowed. The media stopped showing any interest in his African journey. The only thing that concerned anyone was how Chen would form his proposed alliance. Even after Chen returned home and declared that his journey had been a great success, who cared?
The press conference held by the KMT legislative caucus revealed the seriousness of the rift between the ruling and opposition parties. No matter how much goodwill Chen brought back with him from his trip overseas, all the public sees is political wrangling.
The president's shots at the opposition from abroad and his wrangling with the opposition deserve criticism, regardless of the time or place of his comments. However, the opposition's failure to confine discussion to the issues at hand and its attempts to axe the president's travel budget are mistaken. To be fair, Chen's overseas visits have been helpful in cement-ing alliances, rallying overseas Chinese and boosting diplomatic morale. They should be supported across party lines. Chen should receive applause for his willingness to visit our African allies, most of which are poor nations.
As for the proper amount of economic assistance that should be given to allies, this problem didn't begin with Chen, nor will it end with him. The ruling and opposition parties should work together in a calm and fair manner to review how dollar diplomacy can be fixed. Even if the ruling and opposition parties changed places and viewpoints, there should be no substantial change in foreign relations and foreign aid policy. The only difference should be in who carries out the policy and who criticizes it.
For Chen personally, this African journey should serve as a learning experience. The lengthy comments he made about domestic politics while he was abroad not only obscured the initiative he showed in visiting Africa but could result in the sacrifice of the diplomatic budget on the altar of partisan strife.
Everything has become politicized in Taiwan. If the president throws political curveballs even when he is abroad, then the expression that "foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy" may be rephrased as "foreign policy is an extension of domestic political strife." Chen should bear this lesson in mind, especially when he goes abroad again. Opposition parties should also exercise restraint. They shouldn't let their burning dissatisfaction with the president result in collateral damage to the foreign-policy budget. After all, the ruling and opposition parties need to seek a unified approach to relations with the outside world.
Kao Lang is a professor in the department of political science at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS