What an intriguing coincidence.
After years of pan-blue-camp stonewalling in the legislative Procedure Committee over the arms purchase bill, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairman Raymond Burghardt visits Taiwan in the month before legislative elections and meets, among other leaders, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (
Within the week, the KMT-dominated committee relents and sends the arms bill to the legislative floor, a move almost equivalent to passing the legislation.
We were not privy to the conversation between Ma and Burghardt, but the timing of the two events -- combined with Burghardt's lecturing of President Chen Shui-bian (
The US cannot be blamed for preferring one presidential ticket over another -- or one party dominating the legislature and not the other. But here is a question that US officials can ask themselves: Is the long-term damage that can be inflicted on Taiwan's national -- and regional -- stability and core democratic structures and practices from one-sided intervention worth the short-term political gain?
When Burghardt criticized Chen -- however undiplomatic his wording -- even Chen supporters could see beyond the reproachful tone. They could appreciate that Burghardt probably meant well, even if certain superiors at the State Department and the White House decidedly do not.
What these allies might not appreciate is the lack of parity in Washington's dealings with the KMT. Chen, for all his faults, has been scapegoated for most of his time as president over the obstructiveness of not only Beijing apparatchiks but also pro-China elements in the pan-blue camp.
And because most US officials are serenely ignorant of Taiwanese domestic politics and do not read Chinese, they do not understand that the balance of KMT efforts in the legislature has been to grind the Chen administration to a halt -- even while directly insulting the US -- and to hell with ordinary people caught up in the circus.
The pan-blue camp continues to smear government agencies as partisan without so much as a logical argument or evidence. The latest agency to take another hit is the Central Election Commission, described by KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (
The US has been steadfast in its silence over the KMT's agenda of discrediting administrative systems. It therefore must be asked if anyone among serving US officials other than AIT Director Stephen Young has requisite understanding of these problems.
It would have been gratifying if Burghardt had publicly warned Ma and Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (
But no. None of this is publicly accountable.
We can only pray that this is not the kind of governance and leadership that Washington would wish for Taiwan -- or tolerate in the name of expediency.
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