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
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