So President George W. Bush has won the US presidential election. In contrast to past presidential elections, the main issues this year were the "war on terror" and the difficult situation in Iraq.
Concerned voters turned out in unprecedented numbers all across the country. In some places voters waited patiently in line for more than 10 hours to vote. The election demonstrated that American democracy is robust and functional. It also showed that the country is evenly divided on the wisdom of going to war in Iraq and on how well the US is doing in trying to stabilize Iraq and extricate US forces without leaving chaos behind.
However, now that a clear winner has emerged, the country must unite behind Bush and support him in carrying out the difficult tasks ahead for the nation.
Bush should not take his victory as vindication of his decision to invade Iraq and his administration's conduct of the war. For the sake of the US and the world, he should move away from the politics of fear, away from the excessive obsession with the "war on terror" and the go-it-alone doctrine of preemption. He needs to address domestic problems such as jobs, the budget and the trade deficit, social security and healthcare, as well as diplomatic matters such as the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran and looming conflict in the Taiwan Strait.
It is unusual for an incumbent president in war time to win such a victory. The experience should make Bush humble. He should not hesitate to adopt ideas proposed by Senator John Kerry which make sense -- for example, the need to restore good relations with America's European allies and to rebuild the US' image as a magnanimous beacon of freedom. Bush should consider Kerry's suggestion to engage North Korea in bilateral negotiations, instead of relying solely on six-nation talks. China has its own agenda on the Korean peninsula and its cooperation is limited and motivated by self-interest.
On Taiwan, US Secretary of State Colin Powell's Oct. 25 statements in Beijing have created grave problems for the future of Taiwan and therefore US geostrategic interests in East Asia. Powell declared that it is firm US policy not to regard Taiwan as a sovereign nation (in contravention of the reality that Taiwan is an effective, self-governing state with people, territory, government and the capacity to deal with other nations), and that interested parties all seek "reunification." The second statement contains egregious errors too numerous to analyze in this essay.
Despite the vague, half-hearted clarification of Powell's remarks and the reiteration of former US president Ronald Reagan's six assurances by the State Department, US-Taiwan relations have been severely damaged.
First, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government has been trying very hard over the past several months to pass the budget for purchasing a US$18 billion arms package offered by the Bush administration.
Taiwan's opposition parties are now firmly opposing the budget on the grounds that such arms purchases are now longer necessary since the US goal is peaceful unification of Taiwan with China. Failure to purchase the arms package would make Taiwan vulnerable to annexation by China through military coercion.
Second, contrary to Chinese propaganda, President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) government has not moved toward independence, even though a great majority of the Taiwanese would favor such an outcome in the absence of China's military threat, because they overwhelmingly wish to preserve their hard-won democracy. Instead, Chen has made incremental, unilateral concessions to China ever since his election in 2000. In fact, a substantial segment of the DPP favors a compromise settlement with China, giving up Taiwan's sovereignty in return for peace. Powell's statements may encourage this wing of the DPP to seek unilateral surrender of Taiwan's de facto independent status by promoting direct links, faster cultural and economic integration with China, leading eventually to the political integration of Taiwan. The annexation of Taiwan would irreparably damage the US-Japan military alliance and cause a chain reaction leading to Chinese hegemony in East Asia.
Finally, the US may be mired in the Iraq war for at least the next few years. The US military is stretched thin.
Taiwan is ill-prepared to resist a surprise, multi-pronged blitzkrieg by the People's Liberation Army before the US can react. Powell's remarks could well encourage Beijing to move ahead its timetable to invade.
To deter a crisis in the Taiwan Strait, it is important for Bush to personally reaffirm US resolve to defend Taiwan against unprovoked Chinese military aggression and to adequately strengthen the US' air and naval presence in the Western Pacific, as required by the Taiwan Relations Act.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance political commentator based in Pennsylvania.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS