Taiwan's election campaign battle has spread from within the country to the US, with both President Chen Shui-bian (
Three years ago, Chen was viewed as a charismatic native-born candidate who nevertheless was short on international vision and diplomatic resources. Since Chen won the 2000 election, he has visited foreign countries every year and stopped over in the US during every visit. After three years of hard work, Chen -- who has never studied abroad and does not speak English -- is performing on a par with Lien, who holds a doctorate from the University of Chicago. Chen met with a record number of US Congress members during his stopover. Many other US politicians also greeted him by phone. Chen's stopover in New York has changed his image of being short on diplomacy.
Both Lien and Chen hoped to create momentum for their campaigns via the support of "American friends" and Chinese-speaking expatriates. Both the blue and green camps are making all-out efforts to mobilize their resources and connections in the US. Lien adopted a primarily academic keynote for his US visit -- attending banquets with scholars in Boston and at Harvard, and meeting with people from think tanks such as the US-China Policy Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and the Heritage Foundation. Meanwhile, Chen focused on political, diplomatic and human rights issues. Though not on an official visit, Chen managed to take advantage of his presidential position and received a boost from US Congress members, thus creating a media focus.
Taiwanese expatriates swarming to New York to see the president of their country also provided an absolute media advantage.
Both Lien and Chen met with American Institute in Taiwan chairwoman Therese Shaheen during their visits. While meeting with Lien in Washington, Shaheen told him that the US would stay neutral in regard to Taiwan's internal affairs. Ten days later, however, Shaheen said during the welcoming banquet for Chen in New York that US President George W. Bush was a "secret angel" of Taiwan.
Shaheen's remarks definitely had the effect of adding more political brownie points for Chen.
Chen's most important mission in his stopover was to promote his key campaign platforms -- referendums and a new constitution. US opposition to these platforms would have a deleterious effect on Chen's campaign. While in New York, Chen gave explanations and guarantees by saying that a new constitution would not violate his "five noes" pledge, that referendums are a basic right of the people, and that Taiwan's current Constitution is out of date. The prior review of Chen's speech by the US government had stirred an uproar in the Taiwanese media, but the fact that Chen was able to speak publicly about referendums and a new constitution in New York also implied a tacit agreement from Washington. Chen's New York trip was not futile.
By comparison, the platform proposed by Lien -- that "one China" means the Republic of China -- is a passive, defensive platform and also a regression to the pre-martial law era as far as cross-strait relations are concerned. Though theoretically consistent in terms of defending the ROC, it is not feasible in real life. Lien certainly received very limited applause from Taiwan, Beijing and the US for his proposal.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS