The second round of the presidential debates is over. While many important questions have not been answered, at least one thing has been made clear.
In response to questioning from President Chen Shui-bian (
Lien had tried to remain ambiguous on this point. Cornered, he finally had to take a stand. But now it is too late to salvage the image of indecisiveness that he projected through his prior ambiguity. In addition, he has now left himself vulnerable to accusations of being anti-democratic.
As referendums are the most substantive demonstration of the democratic principles of popular empowerment, Chen put it best when he said that "Lien wants the people to cast their votes for him" but "he does not wish to vote for the people."
Furthermore, it has become very clear by now that contrary to what the pan-blue camp claimed before the debates -- that the Democratic Progressive Party was reluctant to participate -- Lien was the one who was less than inclined to participate in the debates.
This is clear because Chen invited Lien to participate in two more debates and Lien did not respond. In response to further questioning during the press conference afterwards, Lien dodged the issue again.
Overall, with the policy proposals of the two candidates overlapping on many important domestic issues, the biggest difference between them continues to be the issue of cross-strait relations.
Chen's statement that the sovereignty of Taiwan is indisputable and is not an issue to be cast aside (as was previously suggested by Lien) seems so much more forceful, easy to understand and, frankly speaking, more moving than Lien's position.
Lien's same old tune about the Republic of China being the "one China" of the so-called "one China" principle just pales in comparison. This is because no one in his or her right mind could truly believe what Lien is saying, not even Lien and the pan-blue camp -- not when the whole world knows that the People's Republic of China is the "one China" in question.
Chen's frank and positive attitude on the issue of sovereignty is consistent with the overall theme of his statements during the debates and in fact with his entire election campaign -- "Taiwan Number 1, Reform Number 1."
The differences between the two campaigns' themes is also reflected in the candidates' statements during the debates about economic development. While both men spoke about the nation acting as a management-and-design center for Asia, Lien emphasized utilizing China as a manufacturing base, something that has strong appeal for Taiwanese businessmen. Chen on the other hand emphasized that, even in economic development, Taiwan should never be the vassal or appendage of any country (implying China), and then was quick to point out that relocating the manufacturing base to China could cost the local work force job opportunities.
On this issue, it is obvious that the two candidates are targeting different voter groups.
Overall, while Chen was very clear and consistent about his attempt to deliver a sense of optimism and confidence to the voters about the nation and the future, Lien had a very difficult time in attempting to paint a gloomy picture for the voters.
This has much to do with the fact that Lien is a milder and more passive person than Chen. Moreover, even for those who agree that life is tough these days, it is very hard for Lien to convince people that he understands their pain and suffering.
Under the circumstances, the KMT has much work to do in terms of building up a persuasive theme for its election campaign.
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