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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS