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.
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