These days, Taiwanese media spend almost all of their energy on producing stories about the need for President Chen Shui-bian (
The opposition has failed to have Chen legally recalled and now is turning to political means. The difference in the present effort is that it is being made by non-governmental organizations and individuals, based primarily on information that has not been proven.
Nonetheless, it has generated a large number of supporters, mostly pan-blue of course, but also some intellectuals and dissatisfied pan-green followers. However, increasingly we now see more of the intellectuals, some of whom were originally gung-ho with their anti-Chen rhetoric, questioning the wisdom of bringing Chen down.
They are beginning to write about the need to strengthen democracy, irrespective of which individuals hold office. Some are even pondering the worth of spending so much time and effort on a task that will be rendered pointless in 19 months from now.
One might think that this effort is meant to keep the governing party on the back foot, giving the opposition the time and political capital to prepare for the legislative elections at the end of next year, and the presidential election soon after. If the goal is to keep the governing party occupied, then the opposition is doing well.
They are already working on the difficult task of deciding who among their ranks will be chosen to run for their party and how to rid themselves of black gold and stolen assets. They have pretty much chosen their candidate for the presidential election.
They will have the help of what is called the "mainstream media" -- that is, supporters of the pan-blue camp. The discipline of the media has vanished as the standard and objectivity of articles in the newspapers and TV talk shows seems to have collapsed.
One recent example: a charge that claimed foreign workers had been treated badly and underpaid by their employer. Among the company executives who were charged was a well-known political figure, and they were totally cleared by the judiciary. Very little of this information was mentioned in the media, however.
Over the last six years, badly needed laws and governmental reforms have been held up by the opposition.
To move forward, the government will have to take an almost completely new approach to its job. During these 19 months before the presidential election, there will be uncertainties about personnel in both the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The most likely presidential candidate for the latter is very likely going to be Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
There are also differences on important issues within the KMT that need to be resolved. In the DPP, the priority is to handle the campaign to remove Chen while maintaining the integrity of the office of the president. The question of who will be the DPP's presidential candidate is secondary and still unclear.
Beyond that, the differences within the party on many fundamental issues will be difficult to resolve. Nineteen months may seem a long time to resolve these issues, but there is much to do in preparation for the presidential election.
Whichever party wins will be able to establish the laws needed to pursue their domestic objectives. How that will be done with the policy differences that exist within Taiwan, and with the interests of both the US and China taken into account, is difficult to say.
The year 2000 saw Taiwan's first democratic change in governing parties and major adjustments were necessary.
Inevitably, the winner and the loser had little experience in either ruling a country, or being in opposition. If the present parties continue as now after 2008, there will likely be changes, but not as we have witnessed over the last six years.
There would likely be more effort to develop better communication and reconciliation with each other.
If the result is still a split government, but turned on its head with the legislature having a DPP majority, and the president coming from the KMT, then the differences will remain more like the present. But if the next two elections see the legislature and the Executive Yuan controlled by the same party, then changes will be a far more intense matter for both sides of politics.
For the two most important countries for Taiwan, the US and China, there will be much uncertainty. The uncertainty for China will be the greatest. Even if the KMT wins -- which most people believe is best for China -- to what extent that party will be able to pursue its objectives is questionable, as a large part of the population is not supportive of the KMT's platform.
Further, even if the KMT's objective of a closer relationship with China is fulfilled, this is far short of what Beijing wants. If on the other hand, the DPP can win both the legislature and the presidency, China may have the difficult task of developing a policy that will not overly challenge the US.
For the US, the hope is for a KMT that will not move too close to China, or a DPP that can develop a better relationship with China. The US will likely continue its present policies.
The key question will be whether the US can have a more effective dialogue with a Taiwan that remains an important partner in a growing region. There are crucial changes ahead that could determine the future of Taiwan's democracy and its national identity.
The people of Taiwan will make that decision. But what they now seem to be doing is accepting a step toward a different kind of democracy, and that is only 19 months ahead.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS