The clearest signal sent by the presidential election is that mainstream opinion in Taiwan has changed. The pan-green camp's vote has jumped from 40 percent in 2000 to 50 percent this year, showing that a feeling of Taiwanese identity has expanded.
The Chinese Communist Party had always placed its hope in the people of Taiwan, but this election has shown that the Tai-wanese people are neither interested in nor willing to accept Beijing's policy of "one country, two systems." Mainstream opinion here is now heading in the opposite direction, away from unification. In other words, China's hopes for support from the Taiwanese have been dashed.
If Beijing and Washington were not convinced about this trend four years ago, then they should be now. They must deal with the reality of Taiwan. No matter how Beijing adjusts its policy, it is no longer possible to make "one country, two systems" the core of that policy.
The Taiwanese people should receive congratulations for this election, because their democracy is now able to stand up to the test of post-election conflict between political parties. When the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-People First Party (PFP) alliance refused to admit defeat, attempting to launch a mass movement, the whole world was watching to see if Taiwan's democracy would remain stable.
The fact is, despite the confrontation we see at the moment, the two camps have agreed to accept the results of a recount and resolve the conflict by legal means. With this, a political struggle has, in the end, returned to the constitutional framework. This is a victory for Taiwan's democracy, and a vindication of its democratic ideology.
Compared to the notorious 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations in Beijing, during which the Chinese Communist Party shot its own civilians and students, the relatively peaceful protests of the Taiwanese people have highlighted the democratic system's function of stabilizing society. This is a source of inspiration and encouragement to the Chinese people who thirst for democracy. Massive, violent conflict is unlikely to occur in a real democratic society, and Taiwan is the best example of this.
China has misread Taiwan's situation for a long time in two ways. First, Beijing misjudged mainstream public opinion, believing that the people's resistance to unification had merely been aroused by a minor pro-independence element, rather than an appeal from within the greater body of the people. Second, Beijing miscalculated by thinking it was able to stop a tectonic shift in mainstream opinion by issuing threats.
China is also placing hope in the US, but this strategy faces enormous obstacles. US diplomatic policy prioritizes the national interest, and this is why Beijing has been able to gain concessions from Washington over North Korea and other issues. But the promotion of US-style democracy is also a basis of US diplomacy. Thus, the US government is unlikely to sacrifice too much democracy for the sake of national interest.
Although the US strongly opposed Taiwan holding a referendum at first, it remained ambiguous in its stance, exhibiting a kind of dualism in its diplomacy. If Beijing puts excessive faith in Washington, then their unrealistic hopes will also be dashed.
China should hold more hope for itself. Confrontation and estrangement between China and Taiwan is the result of the gap between political systems. It will only be possible for the two sides to seek a certain kind of unification when China brings about democratization and erases this gap. China will only push Taiwan further away if it continues to maintain a dictatorship while persisting with military threats.
Wang Dan was a student leader during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in Beijing.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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