TT: The first ever referendum in Taiwan failed to meet the legal threshold of a 50 percent of turnout, rendering it invalid. Was this a failure of Taiwan's attempt to take a democratic step forward?
Edward Friedman: The referendum, which obviously by the end had no real content, was mainly a way for President Chen [Shui-bian] to invigorate his base. And I think he probably succeeded politically in doing what he wanted. So from the political point of view it was a success and part of a very successful campaign. After all a party which only had 39 percent of the vote ended up with over 50 percent of the vote. So it was an amazing gain in a very short space of time. The referendum was part of what energized the bases of the votes for Chen.
What one would also hope is that the defeat of the referendum will allow the government of Taiwan to back away from any kind of actions which Beijing would consider provocative.
The president will say that this referendum was defeated and we will really have to take serious conciliatory steps toward Beijing. And hopefully make some initiatives, which this time, please God, Beijing might even respond to.
So rather than seeing the referendum being a failure this time, politically it was a great help and could be used for good purposes that would serve the interests of people in Taiwan in the future. So I don't want to think of it as just a failure.
Daniel C. Lynch: First of all, those questions weren't the original questions that President Chen wanted to ask, so it's hard to know whether the questions were asked within Taiwan or asked what the voters might have decided. So first thing is the officiality of the questions.
Secondly, I agree with professor Friedman that this should cause President Chen to tread cautiously in thinking about using a referendum to pass a new constitution. It's not clear exactly what Taiwan's voters will think of that. Writing a new constitution is obviously a very complicated process and in this context of dangerous cross-strait relations, it is probably dangerous.
TT: What about the election results and the saga of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan not wanting to accept the election result?
Friedman: I think that for the consolidation of Taiwan's democracy, it is important that no matter how painful it is, no matter how close the election was, that the defeated candidates accept the procedure. We could all understand the emotions when you lose a fight by so little but a responsible leader caring about the future of Taiwan, I don't think should have spoken the way that he spoke. It's perfectly OK to say, "Lets make sure that the numbers are correct and it was a very close election." But to make any suggestion without any evidence at all, that the other side engaged in an attempted assassination of the president of the country to win the election -- that is shocking. And I can tell you that the people who come from around the world and from the US, that I have spoken to are all shocked, that a serious party leader in a democracy would talk that way and incite them, was very irresponsible.
Lynch: There was report this morning in the China Times that the US was delaying sending a congratulatory message to President Chen. It is important that the AIT and the White House actually not go along with this, that they will recognize the election results.
TT: You said that observers from around the world are shocked to see Lien Chan's behavior. How will Lien Chan's action affect Taiwan's image in the international arena?
Friedman: A leader of a party who is running for a head of a state is not allowed to have emotions and passions, which are all understandable, shape his public statement in that kind of situation. It is his job to inform his followers as to what are the proper democratic things to do. Taiwan had a transparent democratic election. The numbers are real. Everybody knows that the counting was absolute open and public and verified. And as much as we can understand why they would feel disappointed, the important thing for the leaders to say, is that, the results are the results we abide by. In a democracy it is the procedures which are decisive. And that's what he should say to his people.
I think this morning some people at the Presidential Office are beginning to change their rhetoric and beginning to say that we should allow legal procedures to determine the outcome.
It would have been very nice if he [Lien] had said something like that in the beginning also.
Lynch: In terms of the image of Taiwan, the predominant image everyone would have right now is that of courageous President Chen and Vice President [Annette] Lu being shot but proceeding with the election, standing up there with apparent discomfort but proceeding with the election.
I don't think you have to worry about the image of Taiwan at all.
I agree with Professor Friedman that both Lien and Soong will eventually back down once the voters cool down and let the legal procedures play out.
TT: With the election result being so close, Taiwan looks like is a very divided nation right now. How do you envision the future of Taiwan?
Friedman: The United States is very divided. Taiwan is very divided in a very different way. America is divided on the bases of deeply entrenched forces. I think Taiwan is amidst a rapid change and it just happens that at this moment the forces are evenly divided. There is every reason to think that continuing rapid change is going to go on politically in Taiwan. So I don't think that one should assume that the next time there is an election in Taiwan, even in December, they will be divided in the same exact way.
Lynch: I think obviously President Chen will have to take this division into account. And I think he will. I think the first time he was elected in 2000, he was very accommodating of a different social force, and used different approaches to deal with China and so on.
Friedman: The election has had an impact on both camps too. They are not the same two camps. I think the result of the election is that the DPP is much more open now to figuring out how they will make globalization with China work, rather than opposing it. In Taiwan, to go on with economic growth they really have to go that way.
I think for the blue camp, they much more understand that there has been a change of Taiwan's identity. And that if they are not in tune with that Taiwan identity -- you could see them changing a lot just in the last couple of months -- they can't help to be elected. So the people are changing and the society is changing, so the politicians are changing and the political parties are changing. Taiwan's political system is in a great flux, which is very ordinary in the early years of a new democracy.
Lynch: We don't know how China will react either. Will China act responsibly? Will China recognize that it was close but now that Chen is re-elected, they will have to talk with President Chen? Then I think you will see the cross-strait economic integration proceeding. I think Taiwan will reach to the future confidently and peacefully. But we really don't know how China will respond.
US president-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday named US Representative Mike Waltz, a vocal supporter of arms sales to Taiwan who has called China an “existential threat,” as his national security advisor, and on Thursday named US Senator Marco Rubio, founding member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China — a global, cross-party alliance to address the challenges that China poses to the rules-based order — as his secretary of state. Trump’s appointments, including US Representative Elise Stefanik as US ambassador to the UN, who has been a strong supporter of Taiwan in the US Congress, and Robert Lighthizer as US trade
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
RSS