Accusations of ethnic divisions have been used to legitimize protests following the presidential election. Taiwan does have an ethnicity problem, but not to the extent that it should be labeled "ethnic division." Nor is it true that the pan-green camp's campaign methods provoked ethnic division. President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait model concerns national recognition and is unrelated to ethnicity, but it has been deliberately used by some politicians to stir up ethnic conflict.
What does identification with Taiwan and the Republic of China (ROC), or with China, have to do with ethnicity? This becomes an ethnic issue only if you consider yourself living in "Taiwan Pro-vince," a Chinese citizen in a country divided by the "one country on each side" model. The number of Hakka voting for Chen also increased significantly, showing that the ethnic problem is improving.
Pan-blue voters also come from different ethnic groups. Are they divided? There is a localization faction in the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and the pan-green camp includes an association of Mainlanders for Taiwan independence. This implies that there is no division.
Irrational statements and actions in the wake of the election divide not ethnic groups, but the nation. This is a serious issue.
First, some people in the pan-blue camp do not recognize the legally elected president. People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) has said that Chen is appointing himself president, and former DPP chairman Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良) said that KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and Soong won. Who is Hsu to say so? A representative of the Central Election Commission? The kingmaker behind Lien and Soong? Or does he represent Beijing in offering them the imperial robe?
Doubting the election results or demanding a recount is fine, but it has to be done according to legal procedures. If an individual can make decisions on this, that or the other, and even decide who will be president, the country is doomed.
Second, some people in the pan-blue camp want to stop the presidential inauguration, accusing Chen of having stolen the nation. Before the recount process has been completed, regular activities should continue as usual. Should all activity cease just because a few people claim that "the nation has been stolen?" Does that invalidate all legisla-tion? Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) recognizes that Chen and Lu were legally elected and Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) will follow the law and participate in the inauguration, clearly displaying their understanding of the concept of the rule of law.
The suggestion that Chen and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) were illegally elected and that Wang should be made acting president is ridiculous. According to the Constitution, the premier takes over if the president and the vice president are incapable of carrying out their duties.
Third, the groundless accusations of Chen's stealing the nation caused pan-blue Taipei City councilors to take down his picture in the City Council's chamber, as if they had their own head of state. So did some overseas Chinese associations. Who do they recognize as president? If it is Lien, aren't they dividing Taiwan into two nations? Talk of separate rule for the north and south is yet another bid to divide the nation.
These attempts hurt both domestic solidarity and Taiwan's image. The Democratic Progressive Party must take a softer approach and show sincerity in working for ethnic integration and to prevent provocation. Many intelligent people inside the KMT are also trying to block nation-dividing actions. United, these two forces would reveal attempts at national and ethnic division for the people to reject.
Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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