The two main candidates in next year's presidential election -- President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) -- have agreed to hold a debate on the issues of referendums and a new constitution. This is a ray of sunshine amidst today's negative campaigning. Finally, candidates can put negative campaigning aside and debate their visions for the nation's future.
Voters have lost their appetites recently because of quarrels in the media, the groundless criticisms that fly between the pan-green and pan-blue camps and the dispute over the controversial Special Report VCDs. But Chen and Lien are now bringing the campaign back on track. Constitutional reform, referendums, and cross-strait relations are the topics that people really want to hear the candidates talk about. We hope that the debate will set a high standard for the presidential election campaign.
Although a great ideological divide separates the blue and green camps, their opinions on the constitution issue have converged. Lien's first reaction was to call the idea of a new constitution "Boring!" Later he suggested that a constitutional amendment committee be set up following the election. Recently he proposed a three-step plan for a new constitution.
In form, Lien's current proposal is a copy of the DPP's longstanding call for a new constitution, but it differs in its spirit. This may cause public confusion about the blue and green camps' constitutional proposals. A debate between Chen and Lien might allow the public to clearly see the two proposals' advantages and disadvantages.
The DPP emphasizes a democratic process for constitutional changes. It favors a bottom-up approach without any conditions, and adheres to the principle that the decision should be made by the people in a referendum. Issues such as the nation's name, flag and borders would have to be resolved separately.
The KMT, on the other hand, has allowed a core group of policymakers to decide that a new constitution could not touch on the issue of the nation's name and flag.
The KMT has also proposed a faster schedule than has the DPP, but the KMT wants to amend the Constitution through the Legislative Yuan, elect members to an extraordinary National Assembly to add provisions for a referendum on the Constitution, and use the referendum procedures in the amended Constitution to complete the process. Such a process would be too complicated and would contain too many variables.
Taiwan's political problems -- past, present and future -- boil down to the China problem. Sooner or later, the Constitution must clearly differentiate Taiwan from China.
Chen and Lien both say that Taiwan is a sovereign state. Chen describes Taiwan and China as being "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait, while Lien says they belong to one China -- the Republic of China (ROC).
Although Lien's statement is consistent with the KMT's China policy, he must explain why there is only one China when both the PRC and the ROC are sovereign states. Most nations in the world have recognized the PRC for half a century, but Lien now wants to persuade them that there is no PRC, but only the ROC. This is wishful thinking, and it runs counter to international understanding of the situation.
We hope that Lien will be able to present an effective argument to persuade not only the Taiwanese people but also China and the international community that they ought to accept his one China theory.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS