Fri, Dec 19, 2003 page8

• Editorial: Is Pan-blue ambiguity outdated?

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The pan-blue camp has made efforts to explain its cross-strait policy over the past few days, but the ambiguities and contradictions in their position have not eased the public's suspicions. In the past such ambiguity has been used to maintain stability and the status quo, which appealed to moderate voters. However, considering the changing international scene and changing views of moderate voters, the question is: Has this strategy of ambiguity become outdated?

  A quick survey of the top five pan-blue figures' public statements reveals at least five different views on cross-strait issues. On Wednesday, at a press conference held to give Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) an opportunity to showcase their flowery English, Lien reiterated and Soong echoed the traditional pan-blue view of maintaining the status quo -- no haste toward either independence or unification -- and that the Republic of China (ROC) is an independent country. Lien went a step further by elaborating that the only difference between this view and President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) "one country on each side [of the Taiwan Strait]" policy is that the name of the country in the former case is "ROC," while in the latter it is "Taiwan."

  With advanced degrees in political science, Lien of course knows that there is a fundamental problem with his view. Internationally -- just as the People's Republic of China is the name of the government representing China -- the ROC is supposed to be the name of a government. The only question is which country.

  This was of course disappointing, since only a day earlier, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), the pan-blue campaign chief, had said that his camp neither denied the existence of "one country on each side" of the Strait nor opposed Taiwan's independence.

  Neither Lien nor Soong explained how their latest statements on cross-strait policy fit in with Soong's prior statement that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are both under a "one China roof," and Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) open acceptance of the so-called "1992 consensus," under which the two sides supposedly accept the "one China" principle but are free to make their own interpretations of the principle.

  To worsen the confusion, Lien then said that if he is elected, Taiwan will immediately start a dialogue with China about direct links. How can that be done when China insists that such dialogues can only be conducted if Taiwan accepts the "one China" principle?

  The pan-blues must realize that moderate voters -- the group to which they are obviously trying to appeal -- are not permanently stagnant. Their views are evolving with the emergence of new values and greater demands for rights and freedoms in Taiwanese society. A case in point is the referendum right, which only a few years ago was still just a proposal by radical independence advocates, but which has now become commonly accepted.

  Finally, it is also imperative to realize that, in the past, when China was not nearly the economic and military power it is today, Taiwan might have been able to prosper in the international community with its ambiguous status. But as China gains more power against Taiwan, Taiwan has less room to breathe. Can we continue to delude ourselves that the status quo can be maintained by such an ambiguous cross-strait policy?
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Jeers as Real Madrid fall 2-1 to Man City

  • 2

    Taiwanese tourists go viral in video during Japan quake

  • 3

    Climber to attempt free solo of 101

  • 4

    YouBike to require insurance for all riders from Jan. 1

  • 5

    US military might ‘waning,’ editorial says