Is President Chen Shui-bian(
Is Chen the politician who campaigned as a newborn centrist to win the presidency in 2000?
Or deep down is he still the lawyer who defended activists opposed to Chiang Ching-kuo's(
Chen was very pragmatic in the 2000 election.
He first proposed a new middle way during the campaign to allay fears of a conflict with China across the Taiwan Strait.
He then stated in his inaugural pledge his five noes policy to reassure Washington about his intentions.
That policy especially stresses no declaration of independence, no referendum that would change the cross-strait status quo, and no inclusion of former President Lee Teng-hui's(
Chen even extended several olive branches to Beijing in the first half of his presidential term. But he gradually gave up that pragmatism in the second half of his mandate.
Chen's seizure of the chairmanship of the Democratic Progressive Party last year was the first signal of his move toward a tougher ideological stance: the DPP platform obviously contradicts Chen's five noes policy by stating in a 1999 resolution that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country.
Chen's return to idealism was made clear when he said in the summer last year that there was one country on each side of the strait.
His push for referendums and his promise last month of a new constitution in 2006 confirmed that shift.
Chen indeed perceives himself as a leader with a "strong sense of mission" and a "vision" for his country's future as he said in a recent interview with the Washington Post. Cynics might denounce Chen's idealism as a new form of pragmatism to win next year's presidential election and reach his long-term goals.
First, if the Chen administration is bad at governing, then it should stick to what it does the best: campaigning.
Taiwan is still plagued by a record unemployment rate of 5 percent.
And railway and telecom workers staged major protests last month to oppose the government's privatization policies.
Chen would downplay his weak social record by keeping the initiative and setting the agenda.
Second, Chen is still trailing in opinion surveys behind the joint ticket formed by Chairman Lien Chan (
Chen's provocative rhetoric could trigger an aggressive response from Beijing that would help sway Taiwan's centrist voters.
In reaction to Chen's call for a new constitution, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
Third, Chen needs a three-fourths majority in the Legislative Yuan for any constitutional change.
He could hardly get such a majority even with the full support of the Taiwan Solidarity Union.
A referendum law would allow Chen to bypass the Legislative Yuan and have the new constitution approved by universal suffrage instead.
And fourth, Chen wants to go down in history.
He wants to be remembered as the father of independence just like his predecessor is considered the father of democracy in Taiwan.
Chen may lose the coming election or may not even achieve his goals during a second term, but at least he would get the credit for having built the momentum for the independence cause.
From a deeper perspective, however, there's hardly any pragmatism in Chen's idealism. First, he does not have Lee's political skills.
Lee managed to have six sets of constitutional amendments enacted during his 12-year tenure as president.
Could Chen do better in that regard against a unified pan-blue camp?
Second, if Chen plans to push for de jure independence, he should realize that he does have the means for such an ambitious goal. Right now, Taiwan does not have the defensive capability to deal with a potential Chinese reaction.
According to a report from the Ministry of National Defense released this month, China is adopting a pre-emptive strategy against Taiwan with an emphasis on shock-and-awe effects.
Taiwan, in contrast, has not yet developed any system of electronic warfare.
Third, any change in the cross-strait status quo worries the US.
When Chen was pragmatic, the Bush administration did not hesitate to say that it would do "whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan.
Now that he's more idealistic, Washington does not make such bold statements any more.
US officials have even been upset about Chen's failure to notify them beforehand of his constitutional project.
Beijing could benefit from that lack of communication between Taipei and Washington.
And fourth, China has just signed a plan with the ASEAN to transform the region into a giant free-trade zone by 2020.
That initiative further marginalizes Taiwan since it won't be part of that zone.
And the development of closer ties with ASEAN members depends on stable cross-strait relations.
Chen needs more pragmatism if he wants to break his country's isolation, gain further support from the international community and reassure his main ally, Washington. Too much idealism could lead him to a dead end.
Trung Latieule is a freelance reporter based in Taipei
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
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.
RSS