Thousands of years of Chinese history have taught us that one of the preferred strategies adopted by Chinese leaders is to divide their opponents to weaken resistance and conquer them when a large enough opening has been created.
The one country that is most threatened by Chinese expansionism — Taiwan — should be acutely aware of the grave risks that division poses to its future, and that consequently its people should do everything they can to maintain unity.
However, it is clear that unity is exactly what has long been lacking in Taiwan’s boisterous political environment. A deep ideological split between the pan-green and pan-blue camps makes a lasting consensus all but impossible.
Ironically, consensus was on everyone’s mind during the presidential elections last month, as President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) promoted the so-called “1992 consensus,” while the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and its presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) proposed an alternative, if somewhat ill-defined, “Taiwan consensus.”
After Tsai’s loss on Jan. 14, many on the pan-green side saw the outcome as proof that the pan-blue camp had rejected Tsai’s call for unity and seemed to validate the claim that the KMT was on a ruthless quest — echoes of its authoritarian past, perhaps — to undermine Taiwan’s democratic way of life.
Although it would be hard to dispute the fact that Ma and his party gave a less than enthusiastic response to Tsai’s “Taiwan consensus,” one can hardly fault them for doing so. After all, the DPP had not exactly chosen the best timing to put forward its idea of a consensus, doing so when the electoral campaign was heating up. No politician in his right mind seeking re-election would, in the middle of a campaign, embrace a policy proposed by his opponent. That is the nature of democratic electoral campaigns, which are inherently divisive and feed on confrontation rather than shared goals.
That said, we could take comfort in the possibility that such intransigence was only temporary. With the elections behind us, and with the DPP and its ally, the Taiwan Solidarity Union, making gains in the legislature, now is the time to reach across the political divide to find common ground, especially on the subject of Beijing’s claim to sovereignty over Taiwan.
There is no lack of people on the pan-blue side — KMT members, government officials and people who voted for Ma — who, like the DPP, identify themselves as Taiwanese and regard being ruled by the Chinese Communist Party as unconscionable.
While political differences will always remain and will come into sharp contrast the next time there are elections, the sense of a shared identity, a firm belief in the value of democracy and identification with the land, is a bond, oftentimes ignored, that can help people of various political persuasions work toward a common goal.
Taking that extra step and reaching out is the responsibility of both camps, who among their members still count some laggards who might not be able to find it within themselves to transcend the rigidity of winner-take-all politics. For the sake of the nation, political parties should find the strength and courage to cast out the political dinosaurs who would rather live in the past than look to the future.
It can only be imagined how confident Taiwan could be when it signs agreements with China, welcomes investment from across the Taiwan Strait and receives Chinese dignitaries, students and tourists, if, rather than being torn apart by division, its people present a united front.
On a peaceful day in the open Pacific Ocean to the east of Taiwan, a US carrier and five accompanying warships were slowly sailing to guard the western Pacific. Another carrier battle group had just returned to its home port in San Diego. Suddenly, alarms went off as many intercontinental ballistic missiles were launched from the interior of China, flying toward Taiwan. Numerous Chinese warships, carriers, fighter jets, bombers and submarines were fast converging on the US ships. Not too long after, missiles, bombs and torpedoes were fired at the US carrier. The surprise to Americans was the number of
I was a bit startled last week when Legislative Yuan Speaker You Si-kun (游錫堃) suggested that the United States could extend official recognition to an independent Taiwan if China were to launch an invasion. While I think Speaker You is correct, I am not sure it is a helpful point of view. Naturally, there are contingency plans in Washington on diplomatic actions that could deter Chinese military action, but they contemplate the continuity of a democratic Taiwanese government that could survive offshore in exile if part or all of Taiwan is occupied by communist Chinese forces. China’s threat that “Taiwan
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) unscheduled visit to Tibet on July 20 attracted extensive international attention. Although Chinese media said that Xi’s visit was meant to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the accession of Tibet to China, Tibet has remained a politically charged issue for China as well as the international community. The genesis of the turbulent ties between Tibet and China dates back to 1951, when the Chinese regime annexed Tibet through a seven-point agreement. China has used this agreement as proof of its sovereignty over Tibet. Tibetans argue that they were forced to sign the agreement, leading them
The Tokyo Olympics will perhaps be remembered as one of the oddest Games in the event’s long and checkered history. Held amid a global pandemic, spectators are banned from most venues, leaving athletes to play out their feats of sporting brilliance in eerie silence. Meanwhile, furious Tokyo residents wave placards outside some venues, calling for the Games’ cancelation. Adding to the incongruity of it all, the entire Russian team is absent, banned due to a doping scandal. That the Tokyo Olympics went ahead at all has been extremely contentious in Japan. Critics fear a mass outbreak of the highly contagious Delta