The pan-blue camp has repeatedly criticized President Chen Shui-bian's (
Earlier, they had cast Taiwan-friendly remarks made by American Institute in Taiwan Chairwoman Therese Shaheen as conducive to Chen's re--election bid. People First Party legislators even wanted to list Shaheen as persona non grata.
Even earlier, the pan-blue camp had openly stated many times that it would not be a pawn of the US and sternly criticized the government's anti-terrorism policies for being sickeningly pro-US. All this seems to indicate that the pan-blue camp is preparing to adjust its policy toward the US, abandoning the DPP's green-out-of-blue pro-US diplomatic tradition, and walk its own path.
The problem is that one can hardly see, in the personal experience, family backgrounds and even political stances of KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
Lien and Soong graduated from famous American universities -- the University of Chicago and the University of California at Berkeley, respectively. These schools have also cultivated quite a lot of anti-US elite. However, in light of the two's past performance in public office and the remarks they made during past visits to the US, they look like the elite cultivated under the Cold War education laws.
The pan-blue camp includes quite a large number of people with such backgrounds. Besides, quite a few of the two's family members reside in the US on a long-term basis and are even naturalized US citizens.
We can also see this in other important political figures with pan-blue backgrounds.
Finally, in terms of their political stances, the pan-blue camp has relied on the US ever since World War II, and this is the underlying reason for the good Taiwan-US relations of the present time. In light of this, the pan-blue elite cannot possibly become the anti-US vanguard.
We can say that green evolved from blue - -- the green camp's good relations with the US can be traced back to the blue camp.
There are two possibilities behind the pan-blue camp's recent criticism of the US. One is based on public interest: the belief that the US is obstructing unification of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.
The other is based on self-interest: the belief that the US' courteous treatment of Chen has affected the pan-blue camp's election chances.
However, the pan-blue camp has already stressed that its policy is neither unification nor independence, that they are a"moderate local faction, and that they have stable foreign policies and a stable policy toward China. Since the likelihood of the pan-blue camp quickly unifying with China is not high, naturally the pan-blue camp is not likely to believe that the US is obstructing cross-strait unification.
Shifting criticism of their opponent to the US, due to self-interest in an election campaign, does not seem like a stable diplomatic model befitting smart politicians.
From the arms purchases issue to the anti-terrorism issue to the direct naming of the Bush family and Shaheen, the pan-blue camp's attacks appear to be quite consistent. Under these circumstances, however, they are not adjusting their diplomatic policy toward the US. It's like heaping abuse on others while at the same time asking them to help you. It's truly inappropriate.
The US and Taiwan hold their presidential elections in the same year. There are four possible outcomes in the partisan pairings: DPP/Republican, DPP/Democratic, pan-blue/Republican and pan-blue/Democratic.
As for the pan-blue camp, they have only two possibilities.
Only with the pan-blue/Democratic victory can they resolve the crisis mentioned above. Even if that happens, the pan-blue camp will have to coexist with the Bush administration for the time between the president's inauguration in Taiwan in May and that of the US president in January of the following year.
Politicians have to pay a price for what they say for the sake of their election chances. It is not a smart choice to fiercely criticize current reality while not planning a policy to change it. Faced with a ruling party that is currently rather pro-US, the pan-blues have two choices. One is to continue to be pro-US, and the other is to become a representative of the anti-US forces. In light of their family backgrounds, personal experience, academic training and political stances, the likelihood of Lien and Soong becoming an anti-US faction is extremely slim.
Speaking insolently about the US again and again while you are not sure about the future development of US politics does not make for a stable diplomatic policy.
Lee Tuo-tzu is a student at the Graduate Institute of National Development, National Taiwan University.
Translated by Francis Huang
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS