Taiwanese politics is intriguing and fast-changing. Outsiders may not be surprised that the US government keeps pressuring President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to soft-pedal his move to "cease the function" of the National Unification Council and "cease the application" of the National Unification Guidelines. But they might be surprised by the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) embrace of independence as an option for Taiwanese people -- which it did in an advertisement in the Liberty Times.
The right to hold national referendums was long considered by the KMT as a political taboo and analogous to de jure independence. But on Sept. 23, 2004, the party seconded the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government's proposal to include the right to referendum in future constitutional reform. Now KMT members raise the idea of holding referendums to decide key government issues.
Now that the democratic value of "letting the people decide" has begun to take root in Taiwan, the gap between the pan-green and pan-blue camps on the independence-unification dichotomy will become increasingly meaningless. The notion that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country will become the common ground in Taiwanese politics.
As a result, Taiwanese will be able to judge a national leader with more scrutiny.
As perhaps the most popular politician in Taiwan today, KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) recent handling of the unification council and guidelines issue and his wavering stance on unification or independence reveals a lack of decisiveness and integrity.
Chen is judged by many as a politician who criss-crosses the political spectrum and pushes the envelope in cross-strait affairs. It is sad to see that Ma is incrementally adopting the A-bian model -- which is to think of running a country as like running a campaign.
Ma's unilateral decision to make independence an option for the KMT reflects a typical one-man decision, with little or no consultation even within his own party.
Former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) expressed his objection to such a proposal. Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), who suggested accepting independence as an option for Taiwan during the KMT chairmanship election, also challenged Ma's one-man decision-making style.
From the perspective of Taiwan's democratic consolidation, for the KMT to respect the people's right to decide their own fate and future relationship with China is a great leap forward. However, whether Ma is sincere in respecting the people's right to freedom of choice remains in doubt.
To avoid being seen as tilting too much toward Beijing, Ma's camp has attempted to use the debate on Chen's proposal to abolish the unification council and guidelines to attract pro-independence voters.
As the most popular potential candidate for the pan-blue camp in the 2008 presidential race, Ma has no choice but to reveal his stance on cross-strait relations. Regretfully, Ma's recent remarks on Taiwan's "status quo" and its relations with China demonstrate a lack of recognition of the cross-strait reality, as well as disrespect for democratic principles.
To keep in step with public opinion, Ma chose to take the heat now, regardless of the pressure he might face from within his own party. People can be expected to back Ma for the next presidency if he continues with this approach.
But is Ma really doing all of this out of concern for the national interest? Can he counter the pro-unification forces from the pan-blue camp? Or is Ma an opportunist politician who only has his eyes on stealing votes from the DPP?
The voters will decide.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS