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.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS