The world continues to watch the relations between Taiwan and China, weighing how potential developments may impact on the interests of individual countries. The focus as usual is on the rhetoric emanating from the three most important players -- the US, China and Taiwan. Too often, however, developments are based on how domestic events unfold at home.
The most urgent domestic issue for Taiwan at this time is how to overcome the deadlock in the legislature. If it cannot be overcome soon, it is quite possible that critical issues such as national identity and the management of cross-strait relations, as well as economic and other pending issues, will become even more polarized. For countries that have interests in the region, what Taiwan does under these circumstances, matters.
The results of last year's elections left the pan-green and pan-blue political parties much as they were in the previous administration -- a split government with the pan-greens controlling the executive branch, the pan-blue holding the majority in the legislature, and with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) the dominant pan-green player and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) the stronger within the pan-blue group. The struggle for political power between the two parties will continue, therefore, and indeed the unofficial campaign for the 2008 elections has already begun.
The DPP must find a way to get needed legislation passed, whether it is related to the economy, social welfare, reform or security. So far they have not been very successful. The KMT, on the other hand, has up to now been able to block legislation and in addition gained support from China. But with the exception of last December's legislative poll, the party has not been very successful at winning elections.
We are now half-way through the year. Little has been done to address the many important domestic issues waiting to be passed into law or given the money to implement them. These issues may remain blocked while the two principle parties maneuver for advantage.
The results of the legislative elections seemed to win the KMT some advantages, but shortly thereafter this was reversed, not by the DPP but by China, which passed an "Anti Secession" Law. The DPP's public relations effort to counter this was very successful -- but were soon challenged by the highly publicized visits to China by Taiwan's opposition party leaders. The opposition chose to turn to China, rather than challenge the domestic political parties. This set a very serious precedent for China's increased involvement in Taiwan's domestic affairs. The move did gain some support from Taiwan's business community, however.
This seesaw nature of Taiwan's political debate continued when the National Assembly elections resulted in the DPP's favor, thereby permitting a critical amendment to the Constitution that the ruling party sought. It did not, however, break the deadlock held by the pan-blue majority in the legislature.
Most recently, the KMT, for the first time, used an open party election to select its chairman. Given the party's advantage in Taiwan's media world, the campaign was covered as extensively as a full presidential election. Aside from this, however, the result has a greater meaning.
The two candidates were different "ethnically" (ie, Mainlander and Taiwanese), which may not be as important as many believe, but each also has different constituencies within the party. The question, now that it is over, is will the party hold together, as past internal disputes have led to divisions within the party.
Another hurdle, which both sides will have to cope with, is the downsizing of the legislature from 225 members to 113, and the rearranging of electoral districts. This latter issue is perhaps more difficult for the KMT, as the factions within the party are based more on ideology or ethnicity than the factions within the DPP. The makeup of the opposition, therefore, may be unclear at least until the next legislative elections, but the party objective -- to regain power -- will remain the same.
The DPP will of course have to cope with the differences in the new legislative system as well. It will not be easy, but there is less likelihood that the party will face a split before the next presidential election. The objective for the DPP will remain to overcome the deadlock in the legislature, and to establish the reforms to ensure that the political system will not return to the past.
For the ruling party, there is the hope that the new KMT chairman will be flexible enough to remove the deadlock in the legislature. The chances of this are not very high, however.
Recently, the government has stated that the president intends to make public for the first time a National Security Report later this year. It is meant to be similar to annual reports made public in the US and in Japan. Its purpose in both those countries is to inform the people about security issues the government believes are of importance. For Taiwan it would be especially important in educating the people about the security situation. There has been little interest in the subject, especially among the younger generation.
While academics generally support the idea, the media -- oriented toward the pan-blue ideology -- have been quick to claim the purpose would be to use an opening in the Referendum Law allowing the president to call for a referendum on security issues.
The struggle between the two major political parties in Taiwan during the first half of the year gained worldwide attention. It has not brought a solution to Taiwan's major problem; however, the remainder of the year might help both sides to learn from the first half.
For the DPP, the March 26 demonstration showed that it has the numbers to trump the opposition's filibuster in the legislature by going around it when the people are convinced that's what they want. As for the KMT, using meetings with China in domestic political debates may not do much to convince the people that it is a Taiwanese political party. Maybe a more rational set of rules in debating differences domestically might be useful.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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