Over the past year, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has pursued diplomatic and cross-strait policies based on the “one China” principle, eventual unification and opposition to two Chinas and Taiwanese independence. But a recent poll by the Chinese-language magazine Global Views found the public and Ma are moving in a diametrically opposed directions.
As many as 82.8 percent of respondents said they considered China and Taiwan two separate countries — an increase of 9.1 percentage points since Ma took office and the largest increase ever within that much time. Those who favored eventual unification fell to 12 percent, while 69.9 percent said they opposed unification.
The poll results do not reflect well on Ma’s leadership, but neither are they helpful for the opposition.
In 2004, public support was evenly divided between those who supported unification and those who did not, at about 35 percent each. Support for the pan-blue and pan-green camps was also about the same, at slightly more than 30 percent each. Those who identified with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) exceeded those who identified with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), at about 25 percent for the DPP and 15 percent for the KMT.
Things changed in 2005. Identification with the KMT shot up to 35 percent, while identification with the DPP sank together with support for former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to less than 20 percent, where it remains today.
Prior to 2005, most voters who opposed unification and supported Taiwanese independence identified with the DPP. Support for independence and for the DPP increased in tandem to more than 50 percent, allowing Chen to win re-election in 2004 with just above 50 percent of the vote.
Yet although the public largely considers an anti-unification and pro-independence stance equivalent to supporting the DPP, ever more people are disconnecting their support for independence from their support for the DPP and, in particular, for Chen.
Even as the DPP’s support decreased in 2005, opposition to unification shot up sharply to where it is today.
It is also strange that although opposition to unification shot up after 2005, and in spite of Chen’s diplomatic efforts in 2005 and 2006, Global Views polls indicate that support for independence slipped from 30 percent in 2004 to less than 20 percent while support for maintaining the status quo increased.
Not until Chen’s diplomatic efforts slowed in 2007 did support for independence recover. Today, opposition to unification and the view that China and Taiwan are two separate countries has reached new heights, while support for the DPP is at a low.
Ma’s low approval ratings show that most independence supporters are deeply suspicious of him. If, however, support for the two parties remains at today’s levels in 2012, a Taiwan where pro-independence has become the mainstream value would still elect a pro-China president.
The fact that support for the DPP is slipping while support for Taiwanese independence is increasing shows that while the public wants Taiwanese independence, it is displeased with the DPP’s approach.
To extract itself from these difficulties, the DPP must either find ways to persuade the public that its approach is the right one or come up with a new approach.
It doesn’t look like the DPP will act any time soon, but the party can no longer afford to put off addressing its troubles.
Lin Cho-shui is a former legislator for the Democratic Progressive Party.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
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