In any democracy, electoral disputes should be settled through the judicial process and all parties should accept the court's verdict in the end. Regretfully, there is usually political maneuverings to bypass the legal mechanism, which has disastrous consequences for democracy. The controversy over Taiwan's presidential election is an illustration of this point.
The opposition's explicit attempts to use judicial means to achieve political ends demonstrated not only the reluctant acceptance of the election results by the pan-blue camp, but also a move by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) to sacrifice the nation's hard-won democracy in favor of their political ambition.
While encouraging their hardcore supporters to take to the streets, Lien and Soong have made efforts to draw international attention, and especially the US' assistance, to extend the battleground. In this regard, the role of the US deserves special attention given the fact that the George W. Bush administration has taken a hands-off approach to the election so far. In its earlier response to the election results, the State Department addressed its con-gratulations to "the people of Taiwan," not to President Chen Shui-bian (
Later the US emphasized that it would not send a congratulatory letter to the winner of the election until all of the electoral disputes launched by Lien have been resolved.
The Bush administration's adoption of the wait-and-see approach toward Taiwan's post-election political change displayed a lack of respect to Chen as well as little understanding of Taiwan's election law.
According to the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election and Recall Law(總統副總統選舉罷免法), the Central Election Commission (CEC) has to certify the results of the election and the names of the president-elect and the vice-president-elect. The pan-blue camp's demand for a recount should not influence the commission's schedule to make its official announcement by today.
The final ruling of the Supreme Court on the election lawsuit would not have any influence on the CEC's certification. Since the lawsuit might drag on for as long as six months, Chen will be inaugurated and fulfill his duty as the 12th president of Taiwan. Chen will be discharged of his capacity as president only if the court concludes that Lien had won. During this period, Chen is procedurally the president. The challenges neither change the president-elect's status nor the timeline for his taking office. Hence, there is no justifiable reason not to recognize his presidency.
Whether or not Washington's ambiguous reaction to the election is being manipulated by the China or the pan-blue camp remains unknown, but such a vague gesture helps to reinforce the pan-blue camp's calls to invalidate the election. Both Lien and Soong have been telling their supporters that the US has not sent a message to Chen because it also has doubts about the legitimacy of the results. Is this the consequence of the US' non-involvement policy?
Moreover, Washington's delay in congratulating Chen will prolong the dispute and could jeopardize the very progress Taiwan has made in becoming a stable liberal democracy. If the US maintains this policy, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan and, potentially, to Bei-jing, that Washington does not recognize Chen's legitimacy. This would encourage both the pan-blue camp and the PRC government to sabotage Chen.
The US should send a congratulatory letter to Chen as soon as the commission certifies him to be the elected president. Do not let political considerations wound Taiwan's young democracy.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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