When Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Richard Shih (石瑞琦) echoed US President George W. Bush's ultimatum for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to step down, the opposition took advantage of his gaffe by accusing the government of dragging Taiwan into the war.
After the Iraq war broke out, the pan-green and pan-blue camps have turned into pro-US and pro-China factions respectively. The Chen Shui-bian (
Both the ruling and the opposition, as well as some anti-war advocates who marched outside the American Institute in Taiwan and the British Representative Office, failed to grasp the essence of the war.
The anti-war or anti-US camp argue that Washington's unilaterally bypassing the UN resolution was not justifiable. But the fact is, the five permanent members from the UN Security Council all voted for the resolution to demand that Saddam should account for and relinquish all his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs, or face "serious consequences."
Therefore, the difference between Britain and the US on one side, and France, Russia and China on the other side, was not about that demand or the ultimate objective but about how much time Iraq should have been given to comply with it.
A clear majority of the UN Security Council would have accepted the war if Iraq was proved to have violated the resolution and if the military attack had been authorized by the UN. The issue, hence, lay in whether the timing of the US-led war was legitimate and whether war was the last resort. It had nothing to do with a dichotomy of pro-war and anti-war camps.
Too bad that most people in Taiwan did not understand the rationale behind it. Things got even worse when politicians tried to turn the war into a domestic election issue.
The Chen administration's nearly unconditional backing for the US-led war is natural and understandable. As a small country, Taiwan can play no significant role in terms of helping Washington in the military confrontation with Iraq. However, as a potential member of its alliance and with its strategic position for anti-terrorism cooperation and post-war reconstruction projects, Taipei has no choice but to side with Washington.
After all, the consolidation of US-Taiwan relations is at the top of Chen's foreign policy agenda. The US government's appreciation for what Taiwan government has done demonstrates a strengthening in the relationship.
The mistakes the administration has made, therefore, were more to do with the way it expressed this support.
The opposition, on the other hand, has been nothing but a loose canon. Since the government's crisis management was relatively good, the pan-blue camp made the best use of the government's poor skills in public relations by portraying Chen as "kissing American ass." The opposition lawmakers' insults against the nation's leader and government will damage their own reputations.
Moreover, both KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), who will team up for the next presidential election, so far have not made any comment on the issue. If the pan-blue camp's strategy is for both of them to hide behind enemy lines and let legislators play the bad cop, how can they convince voters that they are capable of handling an international crisis like this?
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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