With his inauguration speech, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has successfully negotiated several dangers which the Americans, the Chinese and the Taiwanese people themselves have created. For example, Chen has received considerable criticism from both the Chinese and the Americans about his plan for a new constitution. The Chinese complained this amounted to a declaration of independence and the Americans urged caution so as not to upset the Chinese. The inconsistency of the Chinese, who have had at least four state constitutions since the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, has become lost in the rhetoric.
Taiwan clearly does need a new constitution. A Constitution written for a dictatorship of half a billion people in 1947 does not work for a democracy of 23 million people in the 21st century. Some two-thirds of the Constitution's articles require revision or excision. In addition, the new constitution will need to account for changes in institutions as Taiwan adapts its government to its new democratic climate.
Clearly, a new constitution will require substantial support within Taiwan to be legitimate. This important process of gathering consensus in both the preparation and the approval of the document cannot be rushed.
In order to gain this consensus, Chen has compromised. Rather than have the new constitution approved by referendum, he has declared that the new constitution should be approved by the processes laid out in the current Constitution, which use the National Assembly. Chen hopes that the new constitution will incorporate the use of referendums for future constitutional revisions.
In addressing China, Chen also expressed moderation. He reiterated the "five noes" when he "reaffirmed the promises and principles set forth in my inaugural speech in 2000." He restated that the new constitution would not change Taiwan's national sovereignty or territory or touch on issues of unification and independence, in part because Taiwan itself has not reached consensus on these issues.
Chen noted that the future of the relationship with China remained undetermined and there could even be unification between the two sides. However, he stressed that any decision about Taiwan's future must have "the consent of the 23 million people of Taiwan."
Chen stated he would establish a committee with people from all political parties and various walks of life to outline plans for peaceful development across the Strait. Again, he is seeking to broaden agreement across society as a whole.
A considerable part of Chen's speech attempts to bring together the divided people of Taiwan. Even though it was clear on election night that the pan-blue camp required new leadership, the ongoing saga of the recount -- which Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) prolonged by his continuous adding of new conditions -- has postponed these changes. The old leadership of Lien and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) continues to attempt to extend its rule through such maneuvers as unification of the blue parties and mandatory attendance at the protest rally on inauguration day.
A vibrant democracy requires a strong opposition. Clearly the KMT needs to rejuvenate itself and certainly it cannot do so if it relies primarily on Mainlanders for support.
Let us hope, for the sake of Taiwan's democracy, that the pan-blue camp can reinvigorate itself so that the Dec. 11 legislative elections prove both fair and competitive.
Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian languages and cultures and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia
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