This nation's political and military predicament makes for strange bedfellows among foreign observers. Right-wing hawks and military figures in the US get into bed (in a manner of speaking) with environmental activists, pro-democracy idealists and sympathizers in Europe defending our self-determination against pseudo-leftist diehards, "Greater China" advocates, multinational corporations and governments enthralled at China's apparent riches.
This brew is reflected in the paradox of betrayal that is unraveling the pan-blue agenda of unification and the self-interest that is derailing the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Traditionally the defender of a governmental and political system that it manipulated at will, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) portrays itself today as defender of the underprivileged and the ethnically vulnerable, guardian of administrative virtue and the sole agent capable of maintaining the nation's economic health. Yet it espouses oneness with a society that will grow more and more desperate in its attempts to fulfill these demands in its own territory.
The DPP, which inherited a system in need of widespread reform, has been intimidated by the sheer size of its mission and the dedication required to complete it. Since the transfer of power, the party has been witness to the rise of the tricky and the cunning at the expense of the capable and the diligent. The good work that has been done under the Chen administration cannot compete with the bad press, nor with the disappointment of supporters and former supporters who feel that vital opportunities have been wasted.
Patriotism will not form in this society if the nationalist engine room is occupied by the KMT and the DPP. This is because, in the case of the DPP, Chairman Yu Shyi-kun and other leaders are incapable of revitalizing the party's nationalist goals. Witness Yu moaning yesterday that presidential son-in-law Chao Chien-ming's (
KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
The campaign for a Taiwanese nation has been hurt by so much DPP stupidity and KMT treachery that it comes as no surprise that few will dirty themselves by aligning with either side on behalf of a nation that cannot bring itself into formal existence -- but which still makes a lot of money.
Nonetheless, pan-blue ideologues are setting themselves up for a nasty fall if they think this nationalist torpor can be harnessed in the service of "Greater China." This is as clear as day: Taiwan's wealth and lifestyle are the primary components of its expression of identity, rather than comparisons with other nations, and any injury committed against wealth-generating mechanisms will attract the strongest electoral retaliation among those whose vote is not iron-blue or iron-green.
President-in-waiting Ma may harbor delusions of a China that does not fleece Taiwan's wealth and demean her people, but the day will come for him, as it has for President Chen Shui-bian (
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS