President Chen Shui-bian (
Many observers say Lee's decision to go public at that moment helped Chen gain the votes to win by a narrow margin in the three-way presidential race against James Soong (
Chen certainly owes Lee an apology for letting him down (though the political value of a public apology remains dubious). Lee took risks to support Chen. As head of the Academia Sinica and the first native Taiwanese to win a Nobel Prize, Lee commands enormous respect and exerts considerable influence in this country. Moreover, he had little to gain personally from taking his stance. Nor did he have much to gain if Chen did well. Perhaps, as an academic, he still had a strong sense of idealism that prompted him to express his support. However, because of Chen's less-than-satisfactory performance, Lee has been criticized for supporting him. In addition to becoming a scapegoat for the pan-blue camp, Lee's image as an impartial academic who rose above petty politics and self-interest was tarnished.
Chen owes even more of an apology to those people who have voted for him in the last two presidential elections -- including those who were influenced by Lee's support. Those swayed by Lee were mostly those who identify with Lee's neutral and impartial image -- the so-called moderate voters.
After Chen apologized, some pro-blue-camp commentators were calling for Lee to apologize to the general public for Chen's performance. But does Lee really owe the public an apology?
The answer would depend on whether those who voted for Chen would have voted for him knowing what the next six years would bring. Can anyone say with confidence that Taiwan would be a much happier and less corrupt place if Lien or Soong had been elected in 2000?
Were Lien elected, Taiwan would have continued under the rule of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), a party that had never had the experience of being out of power in Taiwan, and it would not have been taught a lesson in democracy. Perhaps the KMT might have fumbled less in terms of handling domestic affairs, but there would have been little incentive for the party to do something about the black gold politics that the party cultivated over decades of murky links between the state, the party, the private sector and local gangsters.
As for Soong, his departure from the KMT came about simply because he wanted to be president. There is little reason to suspect that he would have behaved any differently from the KMT if he had been elected.
A change in power for the country was essential. Some may argue that Taiwan was not ready for this in 2000. But growing up early is better than growing up late. Just because Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party did not perform well does not mean that voting the KMT out was a mistake.
Chen and the DPP do owe its supporters an apology -- and now that it has been made, it's time to move on and work harder. Either way, Lee need apologize to no one.
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