In recent weeks, the conflicts between President Chen Shui-bian (
To be fair, their political stances are not that different -- both parties promote democracy, freedom, Taiwan's independence and sovereignty, and the normalization of the country's national status. But their economic views are diametrically opposed. In 2001, Chen replaced Lee's "no haste, be patient" policy with the "active opening, effective management" policy.
It was the first step toward their breakup, and is the biggest reason they have gone separate ways because the two policies represent different attitudes toward China and the Taiwanese.
Lee is always concerned about national security and economic safety. He is troubled by Beijing's strategy of "using business to promote unification," believing that excessive Taiwanese investment in, and cooperation with, China may broaden the gap between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. This will damage Taiwan's economy and the Taiwanese people's income, and will have a negative impact on Taiwan's economic development.
Politically, China's ultimate goal is the annexation of Taiwan, and it seeks to prevent Taiwan from becoming a normal nation. Beijing's political pressure on Taiwanese businesspeople operating in China will also damage the democratic localization forces in Taiwan, turning it into the next Hong Kong -- something that Taiwanese do not want to see. Since Lee is the TSU's spiritual leader, naturally, the party has inherited his China policies.
When the DPP was established in 1986, it was a union of anti-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and anti-dictatorship forces. Their political stance was clear: They sought democracy and freedom, as well as independence and sovereignty for Taiwan.
As the only opposition party at the time of its founding, the DPP quickly won public support. Apart from focusing attention on environmental protection and disadvantaged groups, its economic policies, and particularly its cross-strait business policies, were unclear and divided. Surprisingly, the party's confused understanding of economic policy meant that Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良) was elected party chairman. Hsu espoused "going west boldly," and an immediate opening of direct cross-strait links thus came to dominate the DPP's policy direction.
Under the direction of Hsu, the party in 1998 held an internal debate to discuss its China policies, concluding that Taiwan must "strengthen its base and then go west," adding the seeds of unification ideas into the localization party.
As a result, the party's political logic today is neither unambiguously pro-unification nor pro-independence, creating a difficult situation where its policies sway back and forth.
Whether looking from the point of view of the DPP's theoretical logic or the practical situation, localization (or independence and sovereignty) and "boldly going west" (or "active opening") are mutually exclusive.
Unfortunately, these two policy directions coexist in the party's main discourse, which drives the DPP toward pan-blue camp policies.
Haunted by the ghost of the "go west" policy, the party's administrative team has unconsciously accepted a three-stage discourse: the future of Taiwan lies in the economy; the future of the economy lies in China; cross-strait relations must therefore be the government's primary task.
Since the DPP has a long history of interacting with Taiwanese businesspeople operating in China, corruption has naturally occurred again and again. This has also hindered the development of Taiwan's national sovereignty, delaying the correction of the nation's official name, pro-localization education and the writing of a new constitution.
After six years, the disadvantages of "active opening" are clear for all to see. As China-based Taiwanese businesspeople continue to profit, the people of Taiwan suffer, localization forces fade and the gap between rich and poor rapidly broadens. The government, meanwhile, is losing public support.
Oddly, the Conference on Sustaining Taiwan's Economic Development is slated to take place this month, and the public is calling for the opening of direct links. It is a repetition of 2001's Economic Development Advisory Conference, where the "active opening, effective management" policy was launched. The government has even mentioned "confident opening" this time around.
The DPP has indeed proposed many slogans regarding its China policy, from "boldly going west," "strengthening the base and going west" and "active opening" to the latest "confident opening." It seems that the conflicts between Chen and Lee and between their supporters, will continue to worsen. The problem is that until China recognizes Taiwan's sovereignty, "political independence" and "economic integration" -- that is, "confident opening" and "boldly going west" -- will never be able to coexist.
Huang Tien-lin is a former national policy adviser to the president.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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