Back in May, the National Policy Foundation, a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) think tank, produced a 20-page pamphlet entitled Bulletgate. Recently, reports have said it was distributed to US congresspeople, think tanks and the media. Since the serious accusations in the pamphlet have had a negative impact on Taiwan's international image, the issue has immediately attracted much discussion in Taiwan.
It is hard to understand why the pan-blue camp resorted to the kind of curbside propaganda it is using regarding the shooting of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮). It is also hard to understand why it has continued to use it ever since the March 20 election defeat, and has seen fit to distribute this hackneyed propaganda in US political and media circles. Are the pan-blues simply seeking revenge, or do they have some other agenda?
Using propaganda that was appropriate on the hustings as the official party platform is reckless and takes no account of unintended consequences. The sensational language employed by the pamphlet may be of use in helping the pan-blues vent their anger at losing the election, thereby maintaining a state of heightened emotions among supporters. But the tone of the booklet uses extravagant language to make a case that is based on unsubstantiated rumors. When people in the US learn for themselves that the content of the booklet is false and misleading, how can the pan-blue camp hope to win the trust of officials in the US again?
The presidential elections took place four months ago, but the pan-blues still don't understand that their best recourse is to calmly wait for the results of the official investigation and court hearings. Instead, they are constantly coming up with ill-conceived, baseless accusations that cannot stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
This is certainly not the way to win respect and sympathy. If the US government, Congress or the media decide to take a position regarding the election-related litigation, it will only be after the judiciary has completed its investigation and released an official report on the matter.
The case brought by the pan-blue camp challenging the validity of the election is being considered by the judiciary; the results of the recount demanded by the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) will also be released soon, as will the report on the March 19 shooting by Henry Lee (李昌鈺), the forensics expert -- sanctioned by the pan-blue camp -- who was brought to Taiwan to study the case. That the KMT-PFP alliance should choose this period, prior to the release of these reports, to hype up stale, one-sided propaganda makes one suspect that they are afraid the results of the reports will not be favorable to them, and hope to muddy the waters while they can.
The US election battle in 2000 between President George W. Bush and former vice president Al Gore is still fresh in our memories. Gore's defeat, no matter how unjust he felt it was, hinged on the fact that he had no direct evidence of malfeasance in the Florida polls. He accepted his defeat and even today is still praised by some as a model of democratic grace.
But when Americans see Lien Chan (連戰), a former vice president, and James Soong (宋楚瑜), a former provincial governor, as incapable of following the example of virtuous predecessors, or even exhibiting the basic respect for democracy by waiting patiently for the results of the judicial investigation, instead spreading nonsensical rumors attacking the administration, how can they not be disgusted?
Maybe the pan-blue camp has once again underestimated the wisdom of the Americans. Through their irrational and irresponsible actions, Lien and Soong have shown the US and the international community that the miracle of democracy that they see in Taiwan does not have its roots in the pan-blue camp. The Bulletgate fiasco is merely another example of this.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS