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
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