It is fascinating how an otherwise sophisticated united front campaign initiated by Beijing to win the “hearts and minds” of Taiwanese can, in some instances, descend into a crude and self-defeating tirade — and nothing draws the worst out of Chinese officials like the idea that democracy could generate outcomes that depart from Beijing’s plans.
The latest instance came over the weekend, when Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Jia Qinglin (賈慶林) told Taiwanese during a cross-strait forum that they should “choose the right person” and “vote for the right people” in next year’s presidential and legislative elections.
There is little doubt that by “right person,” Jia meant President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and that the “right people” are Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidates.
Of course, it is beyond Jia’s comprehension, along with that of his political masters, that he has no right to decide for Taiwanese who the “right” person to represent them might be. It is also ironic that an official operating in an authoritarian system where the party, then the state, dictates what is “best” for its citizens, would presume to educate a polity that has cultivated democracy — and used it as an instrument of empowerment — for 15 years.
Farce aside, the remark, which could not have been made without official approval from Zhongnanhai, highlights what can only be interpreted as a growing sense of insecurity in Beijing. With Ma’s re-election far from being a foregone conclusion, Beijing is aware that despite warmer ties, tour groups and spending sprees, it has fallen well short of converting Taiwanese to the idea that China is a friend. In fact, the closer contacts that have resulted from Ma’s cross-strait policies have in several ways merely highlighted the myriad little ways, some trivial, others less so, in which Taiwan and China differ.
It is the right of every Taiwanese to use his or her vote to calibrate government behavior, from the minutiae of everyday life all the way to interactions with authoritarian Beijing. For people like Jia, only the “right person” can ensure continuity in cross-strait exchanges, which underpins Beijing’s plans for eventual unification. However, to Jia’s chagrin, Taiwanese may see things otherwise.
His warning also contains a reminder that in the lead-up to the elections on Jan. 14, the Chinese Communist Party will do its utmost to assist its friends in the KMT, which is likely to translate into wide-ranging political interference in the nation’s domestic affairs. It remains to be seen whether KMT officials, fearing for their political survival, will give in to the allure of Chinese assistance. One test will be whether the Government Information Office, which went on the offensive last week over the light-hearted designation of Taipei as a city of gluttony, will react with similar energy to the naked attempt by another country to influence Taiwan’s democratic system.
Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has a gargantuan challenge on its hands. Not only must it prevail in an electoral system that already favors the KMT and an elite bureaucracy that is largely beholden to the KMT, it will also have to do so in an environment that is increasingly being shaped by Beijing.
Nevertheless, Jia may have unwittingly given the DPP a boost, as warnings and scare tactics have time and again backfired with Taiwanese voters. While more diplomatic than the lobbing of ballistic missiles into the waters off Taiwan in the run-up to the presidential election in 1996, the result of Jia’s ill-veiled threat is likely to be the same: Taiwanese do not like to be told what to think or how to vote.
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has over the past few months continued to escalate its hegemonic rhetoric and increase its incursions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone. The US, in turn, has finally realized how its “strategic ambiguity” is increasingly wearing thin. Similarly, any hopes the US had that the PRC would be a responsible stakeholder and economic player have diminished, if not been abandoned. Taiwan, of course, remains as the same de facto independent, democratic nation that the PRC covets. As a result, the US needs to reconsider not only the amount, but also the type of arms
Taking advantage of my Taipei Times editors’ forbearance, I thought I would go with a change of pace by offering a few observations on an interesting nature topic, the many varieties of snakes in Taiwan. I will be drawing on my experiences living in Taiwan five times, from my teenage years in Kaohsiung back in the early sixties, to my last assignment as American Institute in Taiwan Director in 2006-9. Taiwan, with its semitropical climate, is a perfect setting for serpents. Indeed, one might say serpents are an integral part of the island’s ecosystem. Taiwan is warm, humid, with lots of
China constantly seeks out ways to complain about perceived slights and provocations as pretexts for its own aggressive behavior. It is both victimization paranoia and a form of information warfare that keeps the West on the defensive. True to form, China objected even to the innocuous reference to Taiwan at April 16’s summit meeting between US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga. Neither leader’s prepared remarks even mentioned Taiwan, out of deference to the Japanese side. Biden’s opening statement was modest: “Prime Minister Suga and I affirmed our ironclad support for US-Japanese alliance and for our shared security.
Determined to keep a permanent grip on power, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has abandoned former paramount leader Deng Xiaoping’s (鄧小平) dogma of “hiding our capacities and biding our time” along with the “peaceful development” line that prevailed under former Chinese presidents Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and Hu Jintao (胡錦濤). Instead, he is treading a “wolf warrior” path of diplomacy that resorts to coercion, debt entrapment and hostage-taking. Externally, Xi’s China has claimed that it would never seek hegemony, yet it challenges the free, rules-based international order wherever it can. While insisting that it will not export its ideology, it has