“Third force” is commonly used to refer to parties outside the conventional blue-green dichotomy in Taiwanese politics. However, it is not an entirely accurate term, as it ignores a defining issue in the realm of politics here.
Behind each political term lies an implied context. Politics is a means to ensure that society progresses in the right direction, and a political analysis of these changes and the resolution of political problems are necessary for Taiwan to thrive. This is analogous to a medical diagnosis, a determination made on the nature of a patient’s illness following a meticulous scientific evaluation.
To correct a political issue and its causes, understand its true nature, and then the problem and how to address it is revealed.
Referring to small parties that do not fall into the pan-blue or pan-green camps as a “third force” carries with it two main problems, precisely because of the political context behind the term.
First, it is an implicit acknowledgement of the existence of pro-China political parties, such as the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has an authoritarian structure. Should such parties be allowed in Taiwan when they align with an external threat?
Second, “third force” suggests that it is not a traditional political entity. If voters have lost faith in the festering offerings from the pan-blue and pan-green camps, is it necessarily the case that a third force would represent something more palatable? Is it the answer to the nation’s political problems?
If Taiwan is to divest itself of its problematic political legacy, it needs a second political force to operate alongside the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), possibly as an even more vociferously pro-Taiwan force resisting China’s influence. This would robustly manifest people’s rejection of Beijing’s intimidation.
As long as the KMT remains the main opposition party, the power transitions inherent in a democratic electoral cycle would see regular returns to periods in which people are concerned about the nation’s sovereignty, as Beijing helps the pro-China parties in every major election.
There are 224 political parties in Taiwan, with as many as 98 — more than 43 percent — advocating unification with China.
The sense that the nation’s sovereignty is under siege was not only apparent during the elections on Saturday, it is something that recurs every election season.
Taiwan needs more stringently pro-localization, anti-CCP parties on the ballot, not a “third force” that sees a market niche for itself by virtue of being neither blue nor green, and which indiscriminately courts favor with the US and China.
The most rapid progress for Taiwan’s democracy was made in the 1990s, when then-president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) administration was the dominant localization force, complemented by the DPP. The two parties worked together and democracy surged. Today’s DPP has taken on the role previously performed by the KMT under Lee’s leadership, but which party is going to step up and work with the DPP to resist external interference?
A “third force” cannot bring Taiwan the relief it needs. Only a supplementary pro-localization force that can engage in healthy competition and cooperation with the governing party would be able to overturn the current situation in which Beijing is constantly interfering in Taiwanese politics.
Jiang Fang-yu is a graduate student.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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