During a forum on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) 10-year policy platform on May 2, DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) raised the idea of holding an unconditional dialogue with China. While that has been the consistent position of the DPP, I, as an external observer think it is significant that the proposal was made at this time.
First, apart from meaning that China will not be able to demand that the DPP accept the “one China” principle before dialogue is conducted, “unconditional” also means the DPP cannot demand that Beijing first relinquish the “one China” policy or accept the DPP’s view of Taiwanese sovereignty before dialogue is started. In short, “unconditional” means that neither party can set preconditions for talks.
Second, talking about dialogue with China at a forum on the DPP’s 10-year policy platform not only sends a message to the international community that the DPP is not unwilling to talk with China, it also shows that the DPP is confident that it can regain power in the 2012 presidential election. The party is therefore preparing for a possible electoral win by discussing how to handle relations with China, and dialogue is of course one important step in this regard.
Third, Tsai said in a subsequent interview that regardless of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) personal stance on the issue, he will still be constrained by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This, coupled with Tsai’s neutral comments about Hu in the same interview, implies that the DPP will take a more pragmatic approach in its China policy, considering the systemic constraints on decision-making by individuals. It also shows that the DPP does not plan to back down and that it is aware that it cannot raise a host of impractical suggestions to China or harbor impractical expectations.
Fourth, Tsai has shown her determination to lead the DPP’s China policies and has hinted that China should abandon its practice of inviting individual DPP members to China. Her comments also hinted at the necessity of establishing a reasonable set of guidelines for dialogue while at the same time telling China that it is courting disaster by trying to handle Taiwan through cooperating with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
It also shows how Beijing’s passage of the “Anti-Secession” Law and its attempts to define Taiwan as a leftover from the Chinese civil war is not only far removed from reality but also unacceptable to Taiwanese.
Keeping a pragmatic attitude lies at the heart of these four issues. The pan-blue camp and China have taken Tsai’s words as an indication of possible plans to visit China. I think this has blurred the issue and the emphasis should be on whether we can create a feasible mode of interaction between the two sides. The information contained in Tsai’s remarks is something that Beijing cannot afford to ignore.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS