The outcome of Taiwan's third direct presidential election will determine its next step -- whether it will deepen its democracy and move toward truth, or maintain its current falsity. Whether the blue camp or the green camp wins will make a significant difference in the direction the nation will take over the next few years.
If the blue camp, represented by Chinese Nationalist Party Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) wins, Tai-wan's development will slow down -- or even regress -- in at least four areas.
First, in terms of sovereignty, Lien and Soong have not presented any attractive vision or proposal. They still stress the "one China" principle or "one China rooftop," and continue to insist that one China is the Republic of China (ROC). The Lien-Soong campaign team has also said that there is "one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait," but that statement was clearly prompted by electoral pressure. It was not their real political platform or clear understanding of the future.
A government with a fuzzy view of Taiwan's future will not bring change and progress to the nation. It can only keep Taiwan in a "one China" illusion.
Second, in diplomacy, the Lien-Soong camp's identification with "one China" not only renders Taiwan unable to expand its diplomatic space, but also benefits Beijing. This is because China emphasizes "one China" the most.
"One China," which means the Peoples Republic of China is the sole legitimate representative of China, is the core of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin's (江澤民) eight-point Taiwan policy platform. Beijing is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, no matter how hard Lien and Soong emphasize internationally that "one China" means the ROC.
Also, because of China's rapid economic development, a vast majority of countries and people in the world now recognize that Beijing represents China. Not many people believe that Taipei represents China. Therefore, to stress the "one China" principle is to set limits on oneself and harm Taiwan internationally. At the same time, it is also political propaganda that effectively benefits Beijing.
Lien has proposed not to argue with Beijing over which side represents China. He also said during the first election debate that he would "put sovereignty aside." But Beijing has always stressed that it is the sole representative of China. Lien's statement about setting aside sovereignty amounts to giving up sovereignty. This is because the other side has never put sovereignty aside. It is only a matter of wishful thinking. Therefore, Lien's policy will only cause Taiwan to face difficulties at every step as it did before. There will be no new progress whatsoever.
Third, in terms of cross-strait relations, a Lien-Soong victory could increase tension in the Strait because their "one China" dictum will give Beijing more room for fantasy. As long as the Taiwan government agrees to "one China," Beijing will believe that Taiwan may accept "one country, two systems," and thereby increase pressure on the Lien-Soong government. However, if the pair are elected, they cannot possibly give in to Beijing's pressure and make any compromise.
The situation in Taiwan won't allow this. On the contrary, the pan-blues may display an even more resistant attitude toward Beijing than President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) administration has done, thereby leading to commotion in the Strait and making the cross-strait relations even more uncertain.
China fired missiles to intimidate Taiwan in 1996, primarily because then US president Bill Clinton said his "three noes" to Taiwan during a visit to China. This gave the Chinese dictators room for fantasy. Political fantasy can most possibly lead to disaster. The Lien-Soong camp's "one China" dictum happens to give Beijing such an opportunity.
Fourth, in terms of domestic politics, a Lien-Soong administration will clearly generate a power struggle because there's no other country in the world where the presidential and vice presidential candidates not only belong to different parties, but also used to be opponents who publicly abused one another. James Lilley, a former US ambassador to China, said he thought it was unthinkable for Lien and Soong to become running mates.
In South Korea, Kim Yong-sam and Kim Dae-jung were long-time opponents who hurled abuse at each other. They would certainly have defeated the incumbent, Roh Tae-woo, if they had joined hands in those years. But both wanted face and dignity. Neither wanted to show their ugly sides by building an alliance for the sake of political interests. Eventually both became president.
In Taiwan, the Lien-Soong union obviously is aimed at gaining power. Once they gain power, however, infighting will immediately surface and political stability will be hard to come by.
Re-election of the Chen-Lu ticket will be beneficial for Taiwan's further progress in the above four areas.
First, the Chen administration has further deepened Taiwan's democracy and has proposed a concrete timetable for constitutional amendments. It no longer identifies with the "one China" illusion. Rather, it identifies with "one country on each side" and highlights Taiwan's sovereignty. Taiwan's future outlook is clearly visible [here].
Besides, as democracy deepens in the future, everything illusory -- including the ROC flag, which symbolizes the oneness of the KMT and the state, the national anthem, which represents the party's dominance, and the name of the country, which does not fit into reality -- will be gradually reformed. These reforms will clearly give the people of Taiwan a new outlook.
Second, the Chen-Lu ticket emphasizes "one country on each side." They will highlight Taiwan's sovereign status in the international community and will not fall into Beijing's "one China" trap. Such efforts are undoubtedly difficult, but at least one does not put oneself in an embarrassing situation. Only when Taiwan's sovereignty status is assured can one provide greater possibility for it to further expand its international space -- including joining the UN.
Third, in terms of cross-strait relations, the Chen-Lu ticket will not give Beijing any room for fantasy because they insist on "one country on each side." On the contrary, they may promote stability in the Strait. This can also be seen from the changes in Sino-US relations.
During the Clinton era, the US adopted an appeasement policy toward Beijing. That caused Bei-jing to fantasize and a crisis emerged in the Taiwan Strait as a result. Since US President George W Bush came to power, the US has adopted a pragmatic approach toward Beijing. This has instead forced Beijing to return to reality and thereby led to what both sides view as the most stable period in Sino-US relations since the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Chen's re-election will force Beijing to come back to reality. It will no longer fantasize about "one China" or "one country, two systems." It will no longer suppress Taiwan so strongly because Taiwan will only move toward independence more rapidly if Beijing continues to suppress Taiwan. This will force Beijing to talk to Taipei.
After Chen won in 2000, Bei-jing's top leadership secretly him sent a "slip of paper" to communicate with him. Beijing will send him a big scroll and adopt a realistic approach if he is re-elected.
Fourth, the close cooperation between Chen and Lu during their four years in office suggests that no Lien-Soong style infighting will emerge if they are re-elected. This will promote internal stability, the deepening of its reforms and the development of its economy.
Today, anyone who is not politically blind can see clearly that there is no possibility whatsoever of unification between authoritarian China and democratic Taiwan. Even if China becomes a democratic country in the future, the two sides cannot simply be "unified" because if China implements democracy, the Chinese people, who have finally gained freedom after experiencing numerous hardships, cannot possibly allow the KMT, a party once very corrupt, to parachute into China with assets worth tens of billions of dollars and take over the country, or to become a major political party there.
Much less will Taiwan -- which will have held many elections, moved toward a more well-rounded democracy and economic prosperity, and long won widespread recognition from the international community for its national sovereignty -- agree to become a province of a democratic China.
Therefore, the future cross-strait relationship can only be a state-to-state relationship. If this step has to be taken sooner or later, the earlier it is taken the sooner it will benefit peace and stability across the Strait as well as friendly cooperation in the current and future generations.
The reality in Taiwan today is that the green political parties are asking for a move further toward reality and accelerating its democratization. The blue political parties, meanwhile, are closing the floodgates with all their might. This has not only stunted Taiwan's progress but also caused serious harm to the nation because of the pull of the opposing forces.
The US, due to its terrorism worries, trade with China and other reasons -- had no choice but to raise a "pause" sign toward the Chen government, which had been hitting the accelerator. But everyone knows clearly that the US is standing on the side of democratic, sovereign Taiwan. In other words, the US is no doubt siding with the green camp, which represents such values.
China, meanwhile, is supporting the pan-blue camp due to nationalist ideology and the need to maintain communist rule. It is very clear which side -- in light of China's and the US' values -- represents the unstoppable tide of history.
I do not believe a majority of the Taiwanese people will opt for a power supported by the Chinese Communist Party and abandon the values supported by the US.
The acceleration of democracy is driving Taiwan toward a future with sovereignty. It promises a dignified tomorrow for the Tai-wanese people. Therefore, even though the floodgates have been temporarily closed a few times, Taiwan's democracy bandwagon will proceed, inevitably and unstoppably, toward reality and sovereignty.
Cao Chang-ching is a writer and journalist based in New York.
Translated by Francis Huang
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS