Late last year I was visited by a former student who I hadn't seen for some 30 years. Now teaching at a reputable university in the southern US -- having gone there on a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) sponsored Sun Yat-sen scholarship -- he has reached the top of his field, his articles printed in major periodicals several times a year.
During the course of our conversation, he expressed his disappointment with the KMT, saying that the party was submissive in its cross-strait policy, and that this had harmed his dignity as a Taiwanese. Also, he said the party's obstruction of the arms procurement budget made it difficult for him to continue supporting it, and he has become gradually more sympathetic to the localization factions.
I was very surprised to hear these words coming from a former recipient of a Sun Yat-sen scholarship. To me, the remarks meant that should the KMT be hoping to win and maintain the support of the majority of the electorate, and even to win back the reins of government by pressing on with these policies, they have a long and arduous road ahead of them.
A wave of optimism has spread through the pan-blue camp and several years of accumulated resentment has been swept away by their strong showing in the local government elections held at the end of last month. They also have the pan-greens on the run in the legislature. The expectations born of this success have given rise to a kind of "political bubble" in which they believe they only have to bear the situation until the 2008 presidential election, at which point KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) will ride to victory and the blue sky will press down on the green lands below.
It is possible that the pan-blue camp will only be roused from this childish optimism when the pendulum has swung to the other extreme.
Over the past few years -- if you put aside for a moment a few relatively trivial events such as the offer of the gift of two pandas to Taipei -- we have received only callous pressure and petty actions from Beijing. But who among the many political figures in the pan-blue camp has actually stood up and criticized Beijing?
The most obvious example of this that springs to mind is how Beijing snapped up diplomatic relations with Senegal, one of our major diplomatic allies in Africa, forcing them to break relations with Taiwan, during then KMT chairman Lien Chan's (連戰) visit to China. This was like a slap in the face, but not even the tiniest response was heard from the pan-blue camp.
If they are willing to keep their lips sealed in the interests of the "favorable development" of cross-strait relations, it is no wonder that 40 percent of the electorate remains suspicious of them and believes they may sell Taiwan down the river if they are ever returned to power.
The insult meted out during Lien's visit was just the most prominent example. We can also see how Beijing has laid siege to Taiwan politically and economically, for example preventing it from participating in the International Pledging Conference on Avian and Human Influenza held in Beijing on Jan. 17 and 18. Is this what they mean by "placing their hopes in their Taiwanese compatriots?" The pan-blues cannot continue treating the electorate in this way.
If prominent intellectuals nurtured by the KMT find their policies unacceptable, how can the party expect the man on the street to accept it? It is true that there are those in the pan-blue camp that do business, study or cultivate personal relationships in China, but is it really possible that not one person is willing to stand up and say what needs to be said?
Is it really the case that the current cross-strait stalemate comes down to the incompetence and short-sightedness of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government, and that Beijing has done absolutely nothing worthy of criticism, resulting in the blue camp's complete silence over the past few years?
A related issue is the opposition's blanket obstruction of the arms procurement budget in the legislature. This not only wastes the counsel of all of those retired generals and all those think tank members, it is also done in the absence of a viable alternative to show the electorate what kind of budget would be reasonable, what kind of weapons are surplus to our requirements and what kind of weapons we could develop ourselves.
Is it only during presidential elections -- when the DPP government paints them as colluding with China to divest Taiwan of its military deterrent and sell us out -- that they are able to explain their case, to make everything clear.
Members of the pan-blue camp, you can always say no to Beijing, and it is only through following more moderate policies that you are going to win the support and respect of the electorate.
Tu Jenn-hwa is an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of National Development, National Taiwan University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS