It is inevitable that a mass movement will get pulled in different directions. When former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) launched the "Million Voices Against Corruption" campaign to depose President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), there was a group of people behind the scenes handling strategy. Ho De-fen (賀德芬), a professor emeritus at National Taiwan University, surfaced as the spokeswoman and the campaign's most public face, with more media exposure than Shih himself.
Ho took a soft approach, which didn't sit well with Shih's hawkish "live or die" rhetoric. Her approach had two themes.
The first was keeping a distance from violence and gangsters. After former DPP legislator Lin Cheng-chieh (林正杰) assaulted Contemporary Monthly editor-in-chief Chin Heng-wei (金恆偉) on the talk show The People Talk on Aug. 24, Ho barred Lin and his team, which consisted of bodyguards organized to protect Shih during the sit-in.
The second was avoiding affiliation with any political party. This would create a campaign for "everyone." This approach was similar to that of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman and Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
Not long after this, however, Ho lost her post as spokeswoman. Her replacement, Jerry Fan (范可欽), gave Lin and his team a hero's welcome. It was then that the "red army" was properly organized.
The protesters may have been "red," but they had no reason to reject "blue," and so the pan-blue camp joined the campaign.
Ho later said that it was impossible to get rid of People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), and that his presence embarrassed Ma, who had showed up at the sit-in on behalf of the KMT and provided breakfast for the protesters.
After Ho's approach was rejected, the "red terror" began. Red represents rage, revolution, anti-Chen sentiment (in this case) and, in the minds of some, the Chinese Communist Party. This could not be openly stated, however, lest a sizeable number of protesters object to this and abandon the campaign.
And so the red tide rolled over Taipei, carrying the message "join or perish." This served to mobilize pan-green-camp supporters, and was also a wake-up call to the US.
Ho's approach might have been too soft for some, but if it had been allowed to continue, it might have struck a chord with more people. Instead, the anti-Chen campaign has now turned into a stand-off between red and green. The red tide has generated a powerful backlash.
The Sept. 15 "siege" of the Presidential Office district ended without major incident, thanks to the self-restraint of most of the participants and the work of the police. But some politicians were unhappy with this and urged "constant revolution," a million-strong car demonstration and other radical measures to paralyze Taiwan and incite violence.
On Monday, Shih suddenly canceled the more radical plans, but in the evening there were violent clashes in Kaohsiung. Did Shih plan this but back off at the last moment, or did the protesters refuse to obey Shih's orders?
If Shih has backed away from a radical stance, then those who pushed for radical action should have been dismissed and Ho reinstated. After Ho was prevented from participating, headquarters issued a statement saying that its next move would be to "lay siege to the nation."
All that remains is to see if Ho's removal means the end of the campaign's non-violent stance -- and the utter collapse of its credibility.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taipei.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
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