The build-up to the elections in Taiwan and the US has started much earlier than in past elections. The changes that these elections will likely bring, in addition to what is already taking place in China and the Middle East, could have an important impact on relationships in the region.
Both Taiwan and the US will hold legislative and presidential elections. Some of the prevailing policies -- including commitments made by the last two administrations -- are not likely to be retained, at least not in their present form, by whoever wins the presidential election in Taiwan.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has made the economy its primary platform, which also makes its relationship with China a central issue.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), for its part, emphasizes Taiwanese identity and makes the US its most important partner.
The two main parties will have different ideas on to cultivate the relationship with the US. At the same time, the parties are looking in two different directions on where they want Taiwan to go.
Though the US may not want to interfere with Taiwan's internal matters -- especially democratic elections -- the outcome of those elections will be important for Washington.
In addition, both political parties have more than one potential candidate for president, some of whom -- former Taipei mayor and KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and President Chen Shui-bian's (
The legislative elections on Dec. 8 will determine the make-up of a legislature that is completely different from the present one -- half the current size and involving different districts. The two main parties will likely dominate, but other parties could still make some gains.
The KMT and DPP platforms are markedly different. One seeks unification with China, while the other envisions a separate country. Various efforts are being made to bring about constitutional changes on domestic matters and issues of sovereignty.
Even though a law was passed in Taiwan that was tried out , very carefully, in the last 2004 elections, some individuals in the pan-blue camp, not to mention Beijing, refuse to accept the legality of referendums.
The recent renaming of certain government institutions, with more to come, has engendered some opposition. The Taiwan Solidarity Union has often worked with the DPP on some issues, but there are now differences that likely will change the relationship.
And although James Soong's (宋楚瑜) People First Party has teamed up with the KMT for the forthcoming elections, it remains unclear how this relationship will work out.
As for the US, relations with China continue to grow and despite hedging on some issues, meetings in Beijing and Washington are becoming more frequent. Chinese officials often raise the issue of Taiwan, to which the US will likely continue to repeat its "status quo" policy without really addressing the problem.
This is part of the US's commitment in the "six assurances," -- that is, that it will not play a mediation role between Taipei and Beijing. Chinese diplomats will continue to exploit this to ensure that Washington pressures Taipei to refrain from acting unilaterally on sovereignty issues.
These issues are usually handled by the representatives in Washington and Taipei. If there are differences that require higher-level attention, one side or the other sends a special representative to discuss the matter. Given the differences within both governments on some issues, that process is not as effective as an ongoing dialogue system.
The elections of Congress and a new president in the US will come only a few months after those in Taiwan. Any change in the relationship between Washington and Taipei will be determined in the early days of the new Taiwanese government and in the midst of US elections -- not necessarily the best time for diplomatic change.
Early next year, Taiwan will have a new government. The US, however, will be dispatching personnel and developing its policies only in early 2009. An ongoing dialogue system could help smooth out political differences while each side is making its policies.
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
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