I took part in the recent inaugural meeting of the Democratic Pacific Union (DPU), held at Taipei's Grand Hotel. The handiwork of Vice President Annette Lu (
The DPU takes as its inspiration the notion of "soft power" set forth by Joseph Nye, a former dean of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
At the risk of oversimplifying, Nye urged the US to scale back the role of military force, or "hard power," in its foreign policy in favor of nonmilitary instruments such as economics, public diplomacy, and even the still-potent appeal of American culture.
A diplomacy built on soft power would create international goodwill and thus political conditions hospitable to US objectives in the world. Nye's point of reference was the envenomed climate surrounding the war in Iraq.
In an era of good feelings, the US would find it easier to persuade foreign governments to lend their support to US-led diplomatic enterprises.
Similarly, the DPU aims to construct a Pacific civilization -- Lu has talked of a "soft" or "blue," oceanic civilization -- that derives its strength not from hard but from soft power. Few could argue with this in principle. But the DPU could face a troubled future if it becomes entangled with cross-strait relations or with Taiwan's domestic politics -- as it very well might.
Two obvious dangers lurk. First, some observers -- especially in Beijing -- will likely see the DPU as an effort by Taipei to outflank China's efforts to shut Taiwan out of the international community. Indeed, a speaker at the inaugural meeting declared that one of the organization's purposes was to supply Taiwan with a parallel system of diplomatic relations -- lending credence to such views.
If China's leadership does regard the DPU as a thinly veiled attempt by Taipei to regain its international standing, it will undertake the kind of counter-diplomacy that has enabled it to squeeze Taiwan out of so many international institutions and to browbeat so many governments into severing ties with the country.
China is no stranger to the coercive use of soft power, especially its economic component.
The membership of the DPU is heavily concentrated in Latin America, along with many of the countries that have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
Beijing has reportedly begun using its waxing economic and diplomatic power to apply pressure on these governments.
Trying to split off members from the DPU and fracture Lu's Taiwan-centered soft civilization would be a logical next step in this campaign.
Taiwan cannot hope to compete with China in terms of providing DPU members with foreign investment and other economic assistance.
In short, China might make the DPU yet another theater in its diplomatic campaign to isolate Taiwan.
Putting some distance between the DPU and Taiwanese foreign policy is crucial to the organization's long-term health.
Second, Lu may have erred politically by linking the DPU too closely to her own Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Look at the DPU's promotional materials. The organization's logo consists of a map of the Pacific region.
In mid-Pacific are emblazoned the DPU core values: democracy, peace and prosperity. The D, P and P are highlighted in vivid orange, signifying democracy.
"DPP" leaps out at even the casual viewer.
The danger? The vagaries of democracy being what they are, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) will regain the presidency at some point, perhaps as early as 2008. A future KMT president who views the DPU as a purely DPP venture may be inclined to let it wither on the vine.
This will be doubly true should the legislature remain in the hands of the KMT-led pan-blue alliance.
For the good of the DPU, its leadership should play down the DPP's founding role in the organization.
At a minimum, its logo and other publications should be toned down.
Reaching out to the opposition, perhaps by appointing a KMT member to a senior post, would also help. A bipartisan enterprise stands a better chance of surviving and thriving over the long term.
To build a Pacific civilization, broaden the DPU beyond Taiwan.
James Holmes, a senior research associate at the University of Georgia Center for International Relations, is a DPU visiting fellow at National Chengchi University's Institute of International Relations.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS