On his recent trip to Britain, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Lien's statements remind us of the criticisms he made two years ago on a visit to Washington. On that trip, Lien emphasized that the world would be confronted with a potentially explosive crisis if President Chen Shui-bian (
Without specifying how he would accommodate Beijing in regard to the so-called "one China" principle, Lien pledged in Cambridge that if he wins next year's election, his administration, while countering Beijing's military threat and political pressure, will avoid provoking China in order to maintain regional stability.
Lien's comments also recall the week before the 2000 election, when the KMT launched a series of attacks on Chen. The KMT portrayed Chen as the only candidate who would ignite a war across the Taiwan Strait. In one campaign ad, it warned people not to vote for Chen, otherwise they would have to send their sons to war.
The KMT's incorporation of the so-called "stability card" proved invalid not only because Lien lost the election but also because of the relatively stable situation between Taiwan and China that Chen has been able to maintain since he took office.
The accusation that Chen failed to adopt a more prudent and moderate policy toward China is incorrect. The "five nos" Chen pledged in his inaugural speech opened up a fresh opportunity for Taipei and Beijing to resume dialogue. Chen's later call for both sides to jointly pursue political integration in 2001 should have been treated seriously by the Chinese leaders as a good-will gesture. His administration's gradual opening of the "small three links" was another manifest olive branch. Were these moves not prudent and moderate?
Lien should not overlook the efforts that Chen has made to normalize cross-strait relations. Instead, he should take a close look at how Beijing has sabotaged Taiwan in international arenas such as the World Health Organization and its attempts to downgrade Taiwan's status by buying out Taipei's diplomatic allies.
In a mature democracy, it is often odd to witness a former vice president criticizing the incumbent president so harshly, as if he himself were not a citizen. Former US president Bill Clinton never attacks President George W. Bush over his handling of domestic and foreign affairs. Even former US vice president Al Gore, who lost to Bush by a slight margin, did not point his finger at Bush during his recent trip to Taipei.
Lien's denigration of the Chen administration displays a lack of democratic morality.
Moreover, in any democracy, checks and balances between political parties are normal. A dutiful opposition certainly may criticize the administration and articulate its opinions in order to win the next election. The truth and fairness of its criticisms are open to public judgement. How-ever, it is inappropriate to exaggerate or misinterpret the principle of inter-party checks and balances, let alone attack the government while abroad.
To win public respect and support, the KMT should show the international community the extent to which it can improve on the DPP rather than simply defame the party and Chen. It is therefore shameful to see Lien's loose-cannon behavior amounting to nothing but political trickery.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the