Prudence suggests that not too much be read into the surprisingly inconclusive results of Taiwan's legislative election, because, fundamentally, little has changed and the confrontation with China will persist in jeopardizing the security of East Asia. After the balloting last weekend, President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and its allies ended up with only one more seat, 101, than they had before in the 225-seat legislature. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and its partners ended up with 114 seats, one less than before. Independents held the rest.
The outcome was a surprise to Chen, political pundits and much of the foreign press, all of whom had predicted that the pan-green coalition would gain enough seats to have a majority. When that didn't happen, Chen resigned as chairman of his party to take ritual responsibility for its failure.
Much speculation focused on Taiwan's conflict with China, which has been summed up in the phrase "cross-strait relations." Conventional wisdom said the attitude of the voters on this issue would determine their choices.
As the dust has cleared, however, reasons for the outcome have begun to emerge and they seem to have more to do with Taiwan's internal politics than with cross-strait relations. The adage that in a democracy "all politics is local" seems to have been proven once again.
Consequently, the split government means Chen will continue to run into obstacles in his plans to revise the Constitution, use the name "Taiwan" instead of "Republic of China," reorganize the government and make other moves intended to keep Taiwan separate from China and nudge it toward independence.
The president, who has run into acute political adversity before, may trim his sails but is not likely to change course. Chen and his predecessor Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) have molded a strong sense of Taiwanese identity even if a small majority think the status quo ought to be preserved for now.
The restrained initial response from Beijing suggests that the communist government there was caught by surprise and is uncertain about what the outcome meant. Even so, China's Xinhua news agency contended that the vote demonstrated "the unpopularity of the leader's obstinate separatist stance."
"The voters were alarmed by Chen's rash lurch toward independence, especially his plan to change the name of Taiwan's overseas representative offices," Xinhua argued.
Those offices are quasi-embassies in nations, including the US, that lack diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
In light of that stance, there's not much hope that Beijing will soften its policies toward Taiwan. The authorities apparently believe their hard line helped to bring about Taiwan's election results and therefore they should stick to it and move on with their military buildup. Washington was cool toward the election results after having cautioned Chen that he was going too far too fast and might provoke a military attack from China. Despite those cautions, many senior officials in the Bush administration are reported to favor a Taiwan separated from China and possibly independent.
US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, asked to comment on the Taiwanese election, told reporters: "They had a successful election. That's a good thing. We're glad to see it. What they decide to do within their political system now on some of these issues is going to be decided in Taiwan."
US military officials have been delivering two messages to Taiwan and China. Noting that a US$18 billion arms purchase from the US has been held up by the KMT in Taiwan's legislature, US officers have told the Taiwanese they must do more to help themselves if they expect the US to come to their rescue in the event of an assault from China. On the other side, US officials have repeatedly warned China not to miscalculate. They have told Beijing's military leaders that US military forces will respond with sufficient power to prevail in the ensuing hostilities if China mounts an unprovoked attack on Taiwan.
In domestic politics, the DPP evidently failed to adopt tactics suited to Taiwan's electoral system. In addition, the KMT, which had dominated Taiwan's politics for decades, has far more money in its coffers than does the DPP, a comparative newcomer to the scene. And, as in most democratic nations, citizens voted with their pocket books. Chen had evidently not fulfilled his economic promises to the voters and he paid for it at the polls.
Richard Halloran is a journalist based in Hawaii.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS