In his New Year's address, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) stressed that the "active management, effective opening" policy would be the centerpiece of new thinking and policies concerning cross-strait economic relations. Just when the whole nation is celebrating that Chen has been able to leave the "active opening" mess behind, we hear voices in the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) demanding that "Taiwan must find the correct position for itself" and saying openly that they are opposed to Chen.
"Active opening" has been the pan-blue camp's main platform in the post-Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) era. Together with the so-called 1992 consensus, "one China," and "promoting unification through economic means," it becomes a complete political discourse with consistent logic aimed at national unification.
In contrast to the pan-blue camp's advocacy of unification, the DPP in the past saw itself as an indigenous political grouping advocating Taiwan first, sovereignty and independence. After its accession to power, we were all astonished to see the party adopt the "active opening" policy which set up the strange situation of a pan-green government implementing pan-blue camp economic policy. This set the party up for corruption and a transformation into a pan blue-style party, and the big group of undecided voters also started leaning toward pan-blue ideas as the economy became biased toward China. Realizing this, last year, the Chinese Communist Party thought the time was ripe for the "Anti-Secession" Law. China was probably not surprised when then Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) traveled to Beijing and spoke of "joining hands with China to suppress Taiwan's independence." If Lien's and Soong's pilgrimages were a sell-out of Taiwan, then what is the difference between them and those who ignore the "Anti-Secession" Law and now talk of "active positioning, self-assured opening?"
Espousing economic integration and "going west" despite the fact that China has more than 800 missiles aimed at Taiwan, and on the other hand talking about writing a new constitution, changing the nation's name, and there being one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait, the DPP is a party full of contradiction and devoid of logic. If this goes on for much longer, the party is certain to lose public credibility. The DPP only has itself to blame for having lost both the legislative elections and the recent local government elections. Have the people holding on to the "go west" idea and promoting "positioning" learned their lesson from the election losses?
Does Taiwan have to find "the correct position" for itself? Those DPP members promoting "self-assured opening" say that "the most important task is to clearly define Taiwan's position and the role Taiwan should play in the new international division of labor." The question is whether we should really position ourselves as part of the "Chinese economic sphere" and become a link in the international division of labor based on that position.
They seem to deliberately ignore the terrifying fact that 90 percent of Taiwan's overseas investments are concentrated in China, and that accumulated Taiwanese investments there have reached US$278 billion. Even counting only the US$64.9 billion in investments officially approved by the Investment Commission in 2004, those investments make up 2.3 percent of Taiwan's GDP for 2004 (for Japan, the corresponding figure is 0.05 percent, and for the US, 0.03 percent).
It wouldn't be going too far to say that this kind of China fever will make the nation subordinate to China. Not only does it seriously hamper domestic investment, it also causes irreparable damage to national economic security. If Taiwan becomes a member of China's economic sphere and a tight structure for the division of labor between the two is put in place, will China allow Taiwan to enjoy democracy and freedom and continue to be a sovereign and independent state?
Chen knows the answer to this question, and that is why he has bravely stepped up to pull Taiwan out of the bog that is the "greater China economic sphere" and "one country, two systems," reduce dependence on China and return the nation to its correct position. In his New Year's address, the president said: "To meet the challenges of increasing international competition, the only viable approach is to fully implement the economic development strategy of `deeply cultivating Taiwan while reaching out to the world;' and we should not become reliant on a particular market or a single economic entity. To that end, although we cannot turn a blind eye to China's market, we should not view the China market as the only or the last market. Globalization is not tantamount to `Sinicization.' While Taiwan would never close itself off to the world, we shall also not `lock in' our economic lifeline and all our bargaining chips in China."
This, and only this, is the meaning of "correct positioning." It is the only way for Taiwan to find its own way and to enjoy an independent, free and prosperous future.
"Wake up, Mr. President" is a now-famous expression used by the chairman of a certain opposition party. The president is now awake and he has a handle on the correct position for Taiwan. In fact, it is those who continue to be infatuated with the Chinese market who need to wake up, as do the pro-unification chairman of a certain political party and those in the pan-green camp who continue their calls for "self-assured opening" and the organization of an academic society for cross-strait political and economic issues.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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