In the run-up to the German general election in September last year, the ruling party faced a bitter fight due to the nation's economic doldrums and high unemployment rate. But Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder managed to win the election by trumpeting his anti-US stance and opposing US military action against Iraq.
Similarly, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun edged a narrow victory and was elected in December last year by publicizing his anti-US stand.
Is there a market for anti-US sentiments in Taiwan? Can the pan-blue camp emulate the above examples and win the presidential election in March next year? This is an important issue that concerns Taiwan experts both inside and outside Washington. During my visit to Washington from April 3 to April 9, I discussed this topic with them at several functions.
Since mid-March, many legislators from the pan-blue camp have strongly questioned the government's decision to support the US liberation of Iraq. Some even deplored the "ass-kissing" government as a "puppet emperor." Taiwan experts in the US called such comments "irresponsible." Therefore, it is no accident that officials from the American Institute in Taiwan called on some pan-blue lawmakers to correct and "enlighten" them.
The experts in Washington care very much about Taiwan's political situation. They not only have contacts with each party and faction but also have a unique understanding of Taiwan politics. They did not hide their disappointment at the DPP government's poor performance and failure to carry out reforms over the past three years. But they did not put all the blame on the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) government because they know the ruling party does not hold a majority in the legislature. In particular, pan-blue parties often block legislative procedures just for the sake of opposing the government, deliberately hampering its performance.
Will the KMT stage a comeback next year? The US experts had divergent opinions on this question. Some maintain that since the DPP government's performance fell short of their expectations and since the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) are uniting for the upcoming presidential election, the situation is apparently favorable for KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰), and Chen might be branded a one-term president.
Quite a few experts do not see much hope in the alliance forged by KMT's Lien and PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜). According to their analyses, the KMT remains "unchanged" since its defeat in the 2000 presidential election. Its party organization is still in the shape of the Leninist authoritative structure. The KMT leaders seem to be "unrepentant" and are not making any effort to engage in soul-searching or carry out reforms.
With respect to the party-run businesses, which gave rise to black-gold politics, as well as the return of its party assets to the people -- ? two issues that concern the public the most -- the KMT also dodged them in a perfunctory manner. The KMT has become "unattractive" to Taiwanese voters since it is unable to make any changes.
A retired ambassador familiar with Taiwan politics said that Lien has an impressive resume with experience as minister at several ministries, Taiwan provincial governor, premier and vice president, but he could not recall any major accomplishment Lien achieved during his days in office.
He said the independent candidate Soong condemned his rival Lien as a loser in the run-up to the 2000 presidential election. Since Soong utterly despises Lien, how can the two work together in the future? Why is Soong willing to stoop and accept the position of a running mate, or vice president in a future government -- a position that will have no real power?
This retired ambassador predicted that if Soong cannot serve simultaneously as vice president and premier, he might, after being elected, quit the vice president post for the premiership. According to Additional Article 2 of the ROC Constitution promulgated in April 2000, should the office of the vice president become vacant, the president shall nominate a candidate within three months and the Legislative Yuan shall vote to elect a new vice president, who shall serve out the original term until its expiration.
At the KMT's party congress at the end of March, Lien pledged that, if elected next year, he would immediately visit China on a "journey of peace" and push forward direct links with China on the basis of the "1992 consensus." US experts disclosed in 2001 that some KMT members had visited China to ask the Beijing government not to have any contact with Chen's administration.
In spite of their dislike of Chen's "one country on either side [of the Taiwan Strait]" statement on Aug. 3 last year, they felt more uneasy about Lien's and Soong's overly soft stance on Taiwan's sovereignty.
An US expert who has been a long-term observer of Lien and Soong pointed out that both these two pan-blue leaders oppose Chen's "one country on either side" statement and former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) "special state-to-state relations (特殊國與國關係)" stance, and instead champion the "one China" principle and unification with China.
Prior to the 2000 presidential election, the Chinese government issued a white paper entitled "The Principle of One China and the Taiwan Question," intimidating Taiwan with the use of force if the Taiwan authorities refuse negotiations sine die. Lien dared not to say no to China, and, moreover, proposed a "confederation" structure to echo Beijing's unification appeal.
Soong defined the Taiwan-China relations as "quasi-international relations," a move that tries to disarm the ROC's sovereignty. The US expert also recalled Soong once told a Washington Post journalist that he opposed Taiwan's decision to invest in the theater missile defense concept, in an effort to curry favor with Beijing.
If Lien and Soong come to power, what path will they walk? Will the US government "take sides" in Taiwan's presidential election next year? US experts said the US administration will maintain a neutral stance publicly and not interfere in Taiwan's election. But who is the US' real friend? The experts said they already had the answer in mind.
Parris Chang is a DPP legislator.
Translated by Jackie Lin
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS