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
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS