Unifying Taiwan has become a key priority for President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in his second term.
"We must unite for the sake of Taiwan," he said in his May 20 inauguration speech.
Chen is aware that the
presidential election has deeply divided the nation's social fabric. From a moral viewpoint, Chen has to adopt a more mainstream position because he was re-elected by a narrow margin. From a practical
perspective, he needs a high degree of social consensus to enact constitutional reforms.
Chen also knows that a divided society would weaken the nation in the face of China's military threat.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) campaigners portrayed both opposition leaders as pro-Beijing on the grounds that they were born in China and disagreed with Chen's reform plans. In contrast, Chen used his son-of-Taiwan tag to stress that as a native Taiwanese he was the most fit to defend the nation's interests.
Chen helped turn the presidential election into an ethnic vote by appealing to nationalist sentiments.
With Chen's ethnically divisive rhetoric, the Lien-Soong ticket lost voter support among the Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), the largest ethnic group in Taiwan. Unsurprisingly, Lien secured most of the votes of Mainlanders.
Mainlanders -- those who emigrated from China after the end of World War II and their descendants, and who represent less than 20 percent of Taiwan's population -- felt alienated by Chen's definition of Taiwanese identity.
As a result of increasing Taiwanese identity over the years, the percentage of votes for the DPP has risen from 20 percent in 1996 to 39 percent in 2000 and 50.1 percent this year.
Since the election, Chen has had a choice between a narrow concept of Taiwanese identity and the more inclusive notion of a Taiwanese melting pot. Taiwan faced a situation of apartheid under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) dictatorship,
when the Mainlander minority oppressed local culture.
The danger for Chen, then, was to fall in to the trap of a reversed apartheid by ethnically defining Taiwanese identity.
But in his May 20 inauguration speech, Chen advocated "more tolerance and understanding" between ethnic groups and acknowledged the contribution of other cultures to Taiwanese identity.
Is the president sincere? Chen, after all, is a fantastic political animal, the kind of campaigner any party would like to have on its side.
Chen could send a strong message on his intention to transcend political differences by incorporating politicians from the opposition in his administration, as he did in 2000. But if Chen really wants to translate his blueprint for unity into concrete action, he should quit the chairmanship
of the DPP. Only by standing above partisan cleavages will Chen be able to be president for all Taiwanese.
If Chen retains the leadership of the DPP, however, he will barely be able to maintain a balance between moderates and independence activists. And how can Chen refrain from stirring up ethnic tensions again if he
campaigns for candidates in December's legislative elections?
Chen enjoys more support than his party as a whole. It would be tempting, therefore, for the party to use Chen's popularity to win a majority for the first time in the Legislative Yuan.
There will be strong pressure on Chen to stump for the DPP as it aims to achieve this with the help of its ally, the Taiwan Solidarity Union. But the DPP's thirst for power does not accord with Chen's goal
of bringing about reconciliation between the parties.
Soft-spoken rhetoric hardly goes hand-in-hand with provocative campaign slogans. The year-end election is likely to revive antagonism between the government and the opposition. And Chen could risk losing his credibility if he is involved in that battle.
Former Presidential Office secretary-general Chiou I-jen (邱義仁) has made it clear that the DPP would not merely continue with the cutthroat strategy used during the presidential election campaign.
Instead, he said, it would "cut at the head of the opposition until it falls off" to grab nativist votes from them.
As DPP chairman, Chen would have difficulty in adopting a conciliatory line. He would face pressure from his own party and especially from pro-independence members who would press him to honor his platform, whatever the cost.
Historically, DPP moderates have been treated as lone birds. Former DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) left the DPP because his idea of a "great
reconciliation" between parties was at odds with its political goals. More recently, DPP Legislator Shen Fu-hsiung (沈富雄) was criticized from within the DPP when he suggested that candidates should refrain from manipulating ethnic issues and fanning Mainlander-Taiwanese antagonism to gain votes.
If Chen really has Taiwan's unity at the forefront of his thinking, his fate within his party will be that of a lone bird.
Trung Latieule is a journalist based in Paris.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS