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
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Acting Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has formally announced his intention to stand for permanent party chairman. He has decided that he is the right person to steer the fledgling third force in Taiwan’s politics through the challenges it would certainly face in the post-Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) era, rather than serve in a caretaker role while the party finds a more suitable candidate. Huang is sure to secure the position. He is almost certainly not the right man for the job. Ko not only founded the party, he forged it into a one-man political force, with himself
RSS