Klingons: The Intergalactic Standard for Manliness
Anyone out there???
Taiwanese News
Summary and Analysis, October 27 2004
A. Powell’s Trip to China
B. Taiwanese Response to Powell Trip
C. Political Scandal Regarding International Donations
-Powell’s Trip to China
US Secretary of State Colin Powell recently traveled to Beijing to discuss with his Chinese counterparts the situation in the Taiwan Strait, the human rights situation in China, North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, and a number of other topics. Unfortunately, he was entirely unsuccessful on the Taiwanese question. The US delegation tried to persuade the Chinese government to recognize Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian’s National Day Speech as conciliatory and to move towards a cross-strait dialogue. In his speech, Chen had subtly made a reference to an alleged agreement between Taiwan and the mainland reached in Hong Kong a decade ago, in which the basis for negotiations lay on each side adhering to a “One China” principle, but maintaining separate interpretations of what this meant. However, according to one senior US diplomat, the Chinese were “uniformly downbeat” about Taiwan and possibilities for talks. Powell remarked to the press that the Chinese leadership was, “still concerned about President Chen Shui-bian’s actions and they did not find is statement that forthcoming,” while Chinese paramount leader Hu Jintao responded, “The Taiwan independence forces' activities aiming at splitting the country remain the root of the cross-straits tension and the greatest threat to peace and stability in the region.” In sum, nothing moved on this front.
Another point worth noting about Powell’s trip was that he spoke in harsher terms than ever before about Taiwanese independence. In Beijing, Powell affirmed that Taiwan was not independent and simply a part of China. In an interview with the Far Eastern Review, Powell said, “In response to certain churnings about independence, we made it very, very clear that we do not support independence.”The Taiwanese government was angered and surprised by these comments. Although Powell’s words were not technically a change in policy, his statement about Taiwan not existing as a nation were stronger words than used before. US officials normally say they simply hope for a peaceful solution to the crisis. Furthermore, the Taiwanese government was not informed of what Powell would say to his Chinese counterparts before reading about it in the news(see below for political repercussions).
Powell used these strong words for three reasons. The US felt it necessary to retaliate for the Taiwanese government’s failure to inform the US about Chen’s decision to change the Taiwanese constitution before he mentioned his plans in a speech. The second reason is that Powell felt it important to make sure the Taiwanese understood that American support for Taiwan was not guaranteed, implying that Taiwan should purchase the weapons deal currently in discussion in the Parliament to show good faith. Finally, by using such harsh words against Taiwan, Powell was trying to play down PRC worries about US meddling in the region and to quell complaints about the military deal.
-Taiwanese Response to Powell’s Trip
Secretary of State Colin Powell’s remarks about Taiwan not being a sovereign state have caused an anti-US political firestorm in Taipei, even leading to a food-fight in a committee in the Taiwanese parliament. Foreign Minister Mark Chen said that although some foreign ministry officials were briefed about Powell’s trip to China, it was not in great detail. Chen said that Powell’s words “breached mutual trust” and were a complete “surprise.” Chen continued, saying, “The US has told us not to give them surprises, but this time it is the US giving us a surprise. This is unfair.”
President Chen Shui-bian and Premier Yu Shyi-kun in response to Powell quickly made statements about Taiwan clearly being a sovereign nation with no connection to the PRC. When Foreign Minister Chen was questioned in the Parliament about Powell’s words, he said he was not entirely sure whether the US position on Taiwan had changed. FM Chen said he asked Taiwan’s representative in the US to formally enquire about US policy. State Department Spokesperson Adam Ereli said that no change in policy had taken place, but that Powell had only made “an objective statement.” Chen said that the US State Department has said that Powell meant to say “resolution” instead of “reunification” as the goal to resolve the cross-strait tensions.
The situation in the Taiwanese parliament was at times chaotic. Kuomintang lawmakers chanted, “Powell doesn’t love Taiwan” and “We are not intimidated.” The KMT and People First Party said that if the US did not recognize Taiwan as sovereign, then Taiwan should consequently not buy the US weapons package. KMT lawmakers accused Democratic Progresssive Party member Cheng Tsung-yi (the DPP supports the weapons purchase) of lacking testicles in a committee discussing the US weapons, and KMT lawmaker Chu Feng-Chih lost his patience and threw lunchboxes and books at the DPP, who responded in kind. Tsai Huang-liang, the DPP whip, ordered his party to leave the room to protest the KMT’s refusal to discuss the weapons bill, and the session ended in chaos. Tsai, despite supporting the weapons package and in favor of strong US-Taiwan ties, said that it seemed that Powell was “ignorant of the facts,” showing that anger at the US was across the political spectrum. Both parties are trying to use Powell’s words to their political advantage. The KMT and PFP (known as pan-blue) say Powell’s words show that President Chen’s steps toward formal independence were backfiring, while also criticizing the US as being a bully. At the same time, pro-independence parties say that Powell’s words could only be expected, since Taiwan has not declared independence or formerly changed its name from the Republic of China.
-Taiwanese Political Scandal
Other than Secretary of State Colin Powell’s trip to China, the biggest story in Taiwanese politics this week has been President Chen’s alleged illegal political donations to South American countries, and Chen’s lawsuits against the accusing individuals. Two People First Party politicians, Liu Wen-hsiung and Tsay Chung-han, as well as a television talk show host, Jaw Shau-kong, accused Chen of giving a million dollar birthday gift to Ex-Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso. The money was allegedly intended to quite Moscoso about Chen’s sexual advances (in Taiwanese, “eat her tofu”) and to ensure continued Panamian support for Taiwanese policies.
Because the accusations were so outrageous, they made front page headlines in many Taiwanese newspapers. The situation was exacerbated by Moscoso’s threatening to sue the PFP members for libel, and Chen himself also threatened a lawsuit. The offenders ultimately partially apologized, but said that slush funds do exist with the intent of waging “dollar diplomacy,” a term that refers to Taiwan giving money to governments so that they continue to recognize Taiwan instead of the mainland. The accusations would not have received so much attention if this was not such a sensitive topic in Taiwanese politics. Being forced to give money for international recognition is seen as an act that causes Taiwan to lose face, but some feel it is a dirty need necessary for Taiwan to compete with the PRC. Articles about Taiwan being betrayed by another country despite monetary donations, or a former friend blackmailing Taiwan, appear regularly in the news and contribute to the sense of frustration.
Second Report
I have attached websites as hyperlinks in the Microsoft Word copy of my reports, but they do not show up on blogspot. If you are curious about the origin of a piece of information, please leave a comment with your email and I will get back to you. Actually, if ANYONE out there is reading this other than Eric please let me know and it will make me happy. :)
Taiwanese News
Summary and Analysis, October 20 2004
A. Ethnic Tensions
1. Examination Controversy
2. Ethnic and Cultural Development Conference
B. Concern over Nuclear Program
C. New Poll Numbers
C. US-Taiwanese Relations
1. Carly Fiorina Declines to Act as Go-Between
2. Issue of Bad Communication
3. Powell’s Trip to Beijing
D. Taiwan in US Politics
-Ethnic Tensions
Some members of the Examination Yuan, a governmental organization that designs and evaluates tests for students and government employees, want to exclude China from the topic of “National History and Geography.” Yet Examination Minister Lin Chia-Cheng says that because of an earlier plenary decision, individual committee members cannot change the law immediately, so the plenary committee plans on reconsidering its policies to solve the problem. There is a chance that the current chief of the Examination Yuan may be replaced by an individual more in favor of Taiwanese-centered tests because of slow movement in the direction of removing China. Another proposal from the Ministry of Education wants stresses Taiwanese history in high schools, with the first semester for high school seniors focusing on Taiwan, and the second semester concentrating on China along with the rest of the world. The government also would like to start supporting local dialects such as Taiwanese(Hoklo) and Hokkienese at the expense of Mandarin. The priority would first be placed on dialects, followed by Mandarin and then English. MOE officials have described a high demand for English as “unhealthy” because it is learned at the expense of local dialects.
The rationale behind these steps lies in an attempt by the Taiwanese government to assert an identity that is distinct from the mainland to create more of a basis for independence, but this is also creating problems between the mainlanders that arrived in 1949 after fleeing from the Communists and the Hoklo and Hakkienese, who have lived in China for centuries and whose culture and languages were suppressed by the KMT.
By not including China in tests on “National” history and geography, the government is implying that Taiwan is a separate entity from the mainland. Also, the government fears that locals dialects are slowly disappearing because of the stress on English and Mandarin. More Hakka (an ethnic group in Taiwan) speak Mandarin in their homes than their own dialect of Hakkienese. By once again stressing these languages, the government is showing the existence of a different cultural tradition than China’s.
A recent, important conference discussing ethnic reconciliation touched on this issue of language. At the Ethnic and Cultural Developmental Conference, a Hakka representative called for aboriginal, Hakkienese, and Hoklo languages to all be considered “Taiwanese,” instead of just Hoklo, the predominant local dialect. His point hints at problems among ethnic groups in Taiwan about what it means to be Taiwanese.
There was a lack of agreement at the conference as to the seriousness of the ethnic tensions between mainlanders, Hakka, Hoklo and aboriginals. Stephane Corcuff of Harvard said, “If Taiwan wants to keep its ability to preserve civil peace in a future that will probably be more tense, it must start right now to imagine a mode of national identification based on citizen’s consciousness and to invent a new culture of national allegiance.” He stressed the difficulty of a country with different, competing perceptions of what it means to be patriotic based on a perception of personal ethnic background. This stemmed from several decades of KMT enforcement of Mandarin and emphasis on Chinese culture. Yet others were more sanguine, believing that an ethnic divide was exaggerated. In any case, there was only a single member of the conference who supported unification with the mainland, and he was subjected to yells from the audience during his speech. At the same time, another central point of the conference was that to move forward, that there had to be a moving past the mistrust between mainlanders and other Taiwanese stemming from the KMT dictatorship, and that more respect for different cultures is needed if Taiwan is to become a united country.
-Taiwanese Nuclear Program?
Three recent events have raised suspicions among Taiwanese and American academics about the possibility of a secret nuclear weapons program. Several months ago, the Taipei Times, an important Taiwanese newspaper, wrote in an editorial about procuring nuclear weapons, “The ability to obliterate China’s ten largest cities and the Three Gorges Dam would be a powerful deterrent to Chinese adventurism.” Because of this paper’s ties to the Democratic Progressive Party, the party of President Chen Shui-bian, some became suspicious that this might have been written by a government official. After this article appeared, Nelson Ku of the opposition People First Party asked the Taiwanese premier, “Is there a five-person team, including active and past members from the current administration, planning the development of nuclear weapons?” The premier denied the claim, but its specificity seems to indicate that Ku might have had some access to secret information. Thirdly, diplomats from the International Atomic Energy Agency said they have obtained new evidence that Taiwan had a secret plutonium separation project in the 1980s, putting even more attention on the possibility of a nuclear weapons program.
David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security said of the issue, “There is a growing concern in US circles that Taiwan may be doing nuclear weapon planning now or thinking about it, particularly after the comment in the Taiwanese Parliament.” The State Department, when asked directly about the issue, said that Washington would leave it up to the IAEA to decide what was going on. Hang Suey-Sheng, a military official, said of the allegations, “We have made it clear that we will never develop, use or store nuclear weapons or related items.”
The United States has in the past stopped Taiwanese attempts to build a nuclear weapon, and has said it would not support Taiwan against the mainland should it develop such a weapon. It has used this in the past as a way to convince China to work against North Korean nuclear programs as a quid pro quo.
-New Poll Numbers
A new survey has released some important new poll numbers that will certainly influence Taiwanese politics. For all the numbers, please use the hyperlink to access the website. Below are some important points:
-Upcoming Elections:
Democratic Progressive Party: 24.46%
Kuomintang: 14.57
Undecided: 44.03
-40% said KMT must disassociate itself with unification policies if it wants to win presidential election in 2008.
-Ethnic Identity:
Taiwanese: 62.2%
Chinese and Taiwanese: 18.6
Chinese: 14.4
Issue of Independence:
Support Status Quo:62.6%
Independence Immediately:17.2
Unification Immediately: 5.4
44.8% of Taiwanese said President Chen was sincere in National Day Speech, while 30% said he was not.
-US-Taiwanese Relations
President Chen Shui-bian asked HP Chairwoman and CEO Carly Fiorina to act as a go-between for Taiwan to persuade China to open direct air links and agree to bilateral dialogue. He urged her to “express to Beijing and lobby for the support of the US in accordance with this principle.” Fiorina was nonplussed, and her company released a report saying, “The purpose of Fiorina’s visit in Taiwan is to meet with customers and she believes businesses should stick to business and leave politics to politicians.
Two former chairs of the American Institute in Taiwan have raised the issue of bad communication between Taiwan and the United States. The American Institute in Taiwan is the US government’s non-official representation in Taiwan, and State Department officials must go on leave for a period of time to work there. Therese Shaheen and Richard Bush, the two chairs, said that Taiwan had on numerous occasions not informed the US about important policy announcements. Most significantly, Taiwan did not give the US a heads up about releasing plans to introduce a new constitution. They said that future problems like this might cause serious friction in the relationship.
Secretary of State Colin Powell will soon make a trip to Beijing to promote President Chen Shui-bian’s call for cross-strait dialogue and to discuss the American position regarding arms sales to Taiwan. Although Richard Boucher, State Department spokesperson, said that the US did not agree with Chen’s National Holiday Speech in its entirety, he agreed with the spirit of it, and called it constructive.
-Taiwan in US Politics
Senator John Kerry and President Bush have avoided Taiwan throughout the entire presidential campaign, so it has been difficult to determine whether or not they would have significantly different policies toward the island. Different analysts have reached different conclusions. Alan Romberg of the Henry L. Stimson Center says of the issue, “Obviously, there will be differences.” Yet John Tkacik of the Heritage Foundation says that he finds the differences, “quite stark” and that Bush was “far clearer and firm.”
During the primaries, Kerry said that he supported a “one-country, two-systems” solution to the Taiwan question, which is a departure from current policy, which does not go quite that far. The party platforms do not make the question any easier. The Democratic platform simply says it wants the final solution to be , consistent with the wishes and best interest of the Taiwanese people. The Republican platform states, “America will help Taiwan defend itself.”
Senator Joe Biden of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee also recently broached the subject during a meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations. He described Kerry’s position as, “the same policy as the last seven presidents: studied ambiguity. He also claims to have received a call from Colin Powell saying, The president just accidentally changed our policy on Taiwan, after Bush said that he would do whatever it took to defend the island. Bush has recently, “been trying to put the issue back in the box,” according to Biden.
Taiwanese Think Tanks
Taiwanese Research Institutions:
Possibilities for Cooperation
Introduction:
Should the Center for American Progress decide to pursue a cooperative relationship with a research organization in Taiwan, it is clear that there is no shortage of opportunities. Taiwan is home to a large number of think tanks of various affiliations, scopes, and interests, many of which also have a history of working with other research centers throughout the world.
Most think tanks in Taiwan have political or university affiliations. Think tanks with political affiliations generally profess to be independent and impartial, but receive the majority of their funding from political parties. So, unlike many American think tanks with clear ideological leanings but without strong structural ties with political parties, politically affiliated Taiwanese think tanks are much more closely with their political counterparts. This type of think tank exists on both sides of the political spectrum, and also have a history of pursuing relationships with research institutions in other countries.
Having said this, it would be helpful to discuss the general expert and common consensus toward progressive political politics in the United States and why it would be in the Center’s interest to pursue relationships with Taiwanese counterparts. Many Taiwanese experts feel more comfortable with Republican presidents than Democrats because they feel that the Republican position is more clear. Lo Chih-Cheng, Director of the Institute for National Policy Research, said, “If John Kerry wins the election, we don’t know what kind of policy preference the Democrats may have. We don’t know what kind of security team they are going to have.” He also commented that he felt that most Taiwanese think that China wanted Kerry to win the election because he would be softer on the Taiwanese issue.
Although all American presidents have subscribed to the “One China” principle, many Taiwanese see a difference in degree of support. Bill Clinton was less supportive of Taiwan’s entrance into the World Trade Organization than George W. Bush has been. Lin Wen Cheng of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy said that he doubted Kerry would be beneficial to Taiwan because of Clinton’s previous “three noes” policy, those being not supporting Taiwan independence, not acknowledging Taiwanese independence, and not supporting Taiwan’s entrance into international organizations. Deputy Professor Chiu Kun-Hsuan of the ChengChi University’s Asia Research Institute said the Democratic policy was too vague, and that Rand Beers and Richard Holbrooke were antagonistic toward Taiwan. He believes that most Taiwanese are hoping for a Republican victory in November.
Yet many academics and researchers, especially those sympathetic to the Taiwanese President’s Democratic Progressive Party, feel ambivalent about the Democrats. They feel that on issues of values such as human rights the DPP has more in come with the Democrats than the Republicans. If the Center was able to use this sentiment and convey to Taiwan greater faith in American progressive politics’ commitment to the island, it would be able create better cooperation between Taiwan and the United States in the future. In any case, it seems important that a proper progressive policy toward Taiwan be developed as soon as possible.
University-affiliated universities are well respected in Taiwan, and are totally funded by the university. They occasionally brief government officials and are generally impartial. This type of organization highly focused on pursuing relationships with overseas partners and usually have the largest staffs and most comprehensive resources. Private think tanks are also becoming more popular but are usually not as large as their political or university-affiliated counterparts.
The Center may wish to consider using a previous relationship between the Brookings Institution and the Institute for National Policy Research as a model. These two organizations worked together to conduct a conference in Washington that consisted of several panels including both Taiwanese and American scholars. Please see the link for more information.
Summary of Possible Partners:
Chung Hua Institution for Economic Research
This organization describes itself as a non-profit/autonomous research organ, but because it is heavily subsidized by the government it is more like a semi-governmental institution. It has 45 people in research, 24 research fellows, and 5 research assistance. One of it’s stated goals is to, “play an important role in strengthening economic ties between the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the rest of the world, through the sponsorship of international conference and by forging links with individual scholars and research organizations.” The Chung Hua Institution for Economic Research already cooperates with Harvard, the London School of Economics, and the American Enterprise Institute. The Center for American Progress may want to look into this Institution because it is relatively independent and has a history of cooperation with other organizations, but its focus on economics may limit the scope of scholarly dialogue.
Institute of International Relations at ChengChi University
The Institute of International Relations began as a private organization in 1953 known as the Association of International Relations. It took its current title in 1961 and “began to expand and develop contacts and exchange relations with other academic institutions at home and overseas.” In 1975 it became affiliated with ChengChi University, a school known in Taiwan for its emphasis on Political Science and International Relations, and is completely funded by university funds. It runs the Sino-American Conference annually, alternating between Taipei and Washington. The conference invites scholars from both Taiwan and the United States to come together to discuss current issues facing Taiwan-US relations. It also publishes a journal named the America and Europe Monthly to inform Taiwanese citizens about the outside world.
The Institute has a special department known as the Cooperation and Exchange Section that specializes in creating new relationships with other institutions, and it already has achieved seventeen formal academic exchange agreements. Some connections include the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Chinese Studies at the University of Michigan, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Heritage foundation, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and a number of other universities besides Michigan. Clearly, if the Center for American Progress wished to find a good partner with which to exchange, this would be a viable option. The only possible drawback would be the fact that the Institute already has so many outside relationships.
Institute for National Policy Research
Created in 1989 by the Chang Yung-Fa Foundation shortly after martial law was lifted, the Institute for National Policy Research is the first non-partisan think tank in Taiwan and continues to be entirely privately funded. It has a wide scope and researches multiple issues, both domestic and international. As mentioned above in the introduction, the Institute already cooperates with outside parties, such as the Brookings Institution, the National Endowment for Democracy, and many others. Although not as large as the Institute of International Relations, the Institute for National Policy Research would make another good partner.
National Policy Foundation
Receiving 75% of its funding from the Kuomintang political party, the National Policy Foundation is clearly partisan. It was created shortly after the KMT first lost power in 2000, and it has amongst its ranks many academics and former government officials, including KMT party chairman Lien Chan, who sits on its board. It has a staff of over 150 with 500 assistants, and claims to produce more material than any other think tank in Southeast Asia. It is clearly a strong force in the Taiwanese political dialogue. Although there is no definite reason that the Center for American Progress should not pursue a relationship with the National Policy Foundation, its partisan nature may make it a less suitable candidate.
Taiwan Research Institute
On the opposite side of the political spectrum from the National Policy Foundation lies the Taiwan Research Institute. Described as a “do-tank” by former Taiwanese President and current honorary chairman of the Institute, Lee Teng-Hui, its objective is to bring Taiwan politically closer to the views of Mr. Lee. He is also a leading member of the Taiwan Solidarity Union, which advocates Taiwanese independence from the mainland immediately. The Institute has also been racked by scandal when one if its leaders was accused of embezzlement and money laundering. Because of the intent of this organization and problems it has had, this may not be a good choice for the Center.
Taiwan Foundation for Democracy
The Taiwan Foundation for Democracy was created quite recently with the assistance of the National Endowment for Democracy. Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian sent a message to the World Movement for Democracy in November, 2000 in Brazil to say that he wanted to create an institution to promote democracy throughout Asia and this foundation was the result. Its one year anniversary celebration brought a large number of people from the government, including Mr. Chen and his foreign minister. It seems to be almost a pet project of the president. This organization is also interested in making contacts with other organizations, but because it is fairly new it has not progressed very far in this respect. The Taiwan Foundation for Democracy is another viable option for the Center for American Progress.
Conclusion:
The organizations above represent a wide assortment of options for the Center. They differ widely in their affiliations, and they range from fairly established organizations to newer ones still searching for contacts. Because of a long history of contacts between American and Taiwanese organizations and continuing interest in developing more such cooperation, it would not be difficult for the Center to begin looking into this possibility. If any questions arise from this report, please contact Joseph Torigian at jptori@umich.edu.
Following Formosa
Hi,
As an intern with a think tank, one of my jobs is to send reports to Washington about Taiwanese politics and Taiwanese relations with China and the US. I'm going to post them here for anyone who is interested. I'd be interested in getting comments from people. The first one is posted below. **Now proofread!**
Taiwanese News
Summary and Analysis, October 14 2004
A. Topic of Interest-
Chen Shui Bian’s National Day Speech: Analysis and Reactions
B. Domestic Politics
1. Kuomintang’s Prospects Looking Grim in December Vote
2. More Controversy over March 19 Shooting
3. US Arms Purchase Creating Political Turmoil
C. Relations with China
1. Taiwanese-Chinese Direct Flights?
D. International Relations
1. Trouble with Singapore
2. Extortion from Chad?
-National Day Speech
Taiwanese President Chen Shui-Bian’s National Day Speech on October 10th conveyed a mixed message that seemed to be open to interpretation, a technique that may have been intended to allow for future flexibility in negotiations while appeasing political allies. President Chen describes his speech as an olive branch to China, and the clearest sign of this lies in his identifying discussions in Hong Kong as a model for future negotiations. The 1992 discussions in Hong Kong centered on practical issues of mutual concern to both China and Taiwan, and this type of bilateral talk lasted until 1999 when President Lee Teng-Hui characterized the talks as state-to-state, thus causing the Chinese to break off the negotiations. A “Hong Kong Consensus” has also been ascribed to these talks, meaning that both sides agreed to subscribe to the “One China Policy,” but could have their own interpretation of what this meant. A number of President Chen’s own political allies were worried that Chen was quietly signaling to the Chinese that he was willing to accept their precondition for more talks, that being that Taiwan agree that there is but one China. However, Joseph Wu, the point man in Taiwan on cross-strait relations, has denied that there ever was a HK Consensus. He says that Chen only mentioned the Hong Kong meetings to show that he was interested in talking about practical matters. Yet it is less clear whether President Chen was indeed hinting at the HK Consensus in order to spark some sort of a breakthrough in relations.
The second notable part of the speech, and the most antagonizing part to China, was Chen saying that Taiwan was the Republic of China, and the Republic of China was Taiwan. Although this seems to be clearly the case, there are implications for cross-strait relations. The Republic of China’s history stems from the 1911 revolution on the mainland that led to the collapse of the Qing Emperors, and after Chiang Kai-Shek fled to Taiwan taking this political system with him, Taiwan continues to use the same constitution despite the fact that it is still designed to incorporate all of mainland China’s provinces (including the now sovereign state of Mongolia, which now not even the PRC claims). If, as President Chen says, the Republic of China is simply Taiwan, then it no longer technically has historical or political relations with the mainland.
The speech drew criticism from the majority of the Taiwanese press, politicians from both sides of the political spectrum, and a particularly nasty retort from the PRC. Taiwan’s former President Lee Teng Hui, who now claims to have worked secretly for independence while in office and currently supports the Taiwan Solidarity Union, lambasted the speech as a concession and demanded the creation of a new constitution to formalize independence. President Chen’s fellow Democratic Progressive Party member Lin Cho-Shui said it was simply a measure to please the US. Lien Chan, President Chen’s Kuomintang opponent in the 2004 election, said that President Chen was just bowing to political pressure and did nothing to further relations with China. Another DPP member praised the speech, however, noting that drawing criticisms from both Lee and Lien, with radically different political views, could only show that he was doing something right.
The United Daily News, an important Taiwanese newspaper, borrowed a word from the American political lexicon to label President Chen a flip-flopper for mentioning the HK meetings. The China Times Express said his speech was simply “empty words,” but the China Times praised the speech for being “fuzzy” and said the ambiguity would be helpful for making accomplishments in the future.
The US said that the speech was helpful, but a Chinese spokesperson claimed that President Chen’s behavior was totally irresponsible, and that his remarks, “wantonly seek to create countries on each side of the Taiwan Strait.” Premier Yu Shyi-Kun later followed up President Chen’s speech by saying that Taiwan would meet with China at any time without any preconditions, and would even be willing to discuss the “One China” issue. However, it does not seem like any major breakthrough could occur in the near future.
-December Election Prospects
The failure of the Kuomintang and People First political parties to combine before the December elections portends a likely loss of a majority in the Parliament. The Kuomintang’s Lien Chan and People First’s James Song (known together as the pan-blue)worked together during the last presidential election in an effort to defeat President Chen Shui-Bian (leader of the pan-green coalition of Democratic Progressive Party and Taiwan Solidarity Union). After losing by only 30,000 votes following a controversial assassination attempt against President Chen, the pan-blue political alliance is now in tatters.
This failure to unite, as well as a large number of independent candidates who analysts say will more likely draw votes from the KMT than the DPP, could put President Chen for the first time in charge of the Parliament. He will then be in a stronger position to push for military purchases from the United States, but it will also be easier for him to push for changes to the Constitution that the KMT and PFP oppose. The importance to both political parties of controlling the Parliament is very clear, as all four major parties are fielding political heavyweights. Yet despite the intensity of the last election and the fact that control of the Parliament is up for grabs, it seems likely that the vote turnout will be much lower because of disillusionment with the political process.
-March 19th Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee
While the country still awaits the judicial branch of the Taiwanese government to rule on whether or not to annul the March 2004 election results, the March 19th Shooting Truth Investigation Special Committee is now under attack because of its alleged political nature and widespread powers of investigation. One of its members, Yeh Yao-Peng, has already said that he thinks President Chen Shui-Bian faked the shooting in order to create sympathy votes to win the election. A recent poll conducted by President Chen’s Democratic Progressive Party says that 91% of the electorate believe that the Committee is flawed, and even 31% of the opposition believe that it has problems.
DPP lawmakers have accused the Committee of having powers not suitable in a democracy, with President Chen going so far as to say that these unchecked powers “infringe upon human rights and the judiciary.”
-US Arms Purchase
Possibly the most intense debate in Taiwanese politics today has to do with the issue of buying American weapons. The package would include eight diesel subs, several PAC anti-missile systems, and P3C sub-hunting planes at a cost of over $18 billion. The issue sparked physical confrontations in the Parliament, heated exchanges, and sent thousands to the streets to protest. The Taiwanese military has attempted to push public opinion in favor of the purchase, but comments by the US have undermined their attempts.
Richard Lawless, an American State Department official, said that if Taiwan did not buy the weapons, it would cause “serious repercussions.” He commented that it would show, “the attitude of the legislature toward the national defense of Taiwan.” The US concern is that Taiwan be able to defend itself during the time needed for American support to arrive in the case of a Chinese decapitation strike. These comments caused several anti-US comments in the Parliament, and even Taiwan’s Defense Minister Lie Jie said that while he agreed with Lawless in principle, he said that his remarks were not helpful.
The military has used dancing groups, billboards, and television talks shows to persuade people to support the purchase, although polls indicate that a large number already do. However, a campaign slogan calling on Taiwanese to drink one less cup of bubble tea a week caused thousands of protestors against the purchase to clearly enjoy the popular Taiwanese drink while marching through Taipei.
It is unclear whether the Taiwanese Parliament will be able to pass the bill authorizing the purchase. Opposition leader James Song has said that he is not against the bill, but that he is unsure if Taiwan can afford it. Another opposition leader, Lien Chan, said to Premier Li Shyi-Kun, “Idiot, the problem doesn’t lie in the weapons systems,” prompting Li to comment “Idiot, the problem lies in your ass,” a reference to the fact the purchase was first approved in 1995 while Lien was premier. All told, it is unclear where the votes will fall but the DPP wants to vote before the December elections.
-Direct Flights
Despite charter flights between Taiwan and the mainland during the last New Year holiday, progress on more direct flights has stalled despite new attempts by Taiwan to break the impasse. The Chinese line is that all flights must be considered domestic flights, which is a non-starter for the Taiwanese who claim the Republic of China to be a sovereign nation. However, Beijing’s other principles of two-way flights, no stop midway, and the participation of both Chinese and Taiwanese airlines have been accepted by the Taiwanese. New meetings are also being conducted in Taiwan by government and prominent businessmen in an attempt to develop new ideas to promote these direct flights. Taiwanese now have to first pass through Hong Kong or another country before being able to enter the PRC, adding several hours to travel time.
-Trouble with Singapore
After Singapore’s Foreign Minister claimed at the United Nations that Taiwan’s steps toward independence were destabilizing East Asia, Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Mark Chen used a Hokkien (Taiwanese) expletive to say that Singapore was sucking up to China’s “balls” and that Singapore was no larger than a piece of mucous. After initially refusing to apologizing, Mark Chen finally expressed regret over the comments after it became clear that most Taiwanese thought the comment made Taiwan lose face. It has now become known as the “LP Incident,” with LP standing for the expletive in question.
The problems in the Singapore-Taiwan relationship started after Singaporean leader Lee Hsien-Loong traveled to Taiwan, prompting a rebuke from the mainland that has hardened the Singaporean line against Taiwanese independence
-Extortion from Chad?
A Taiwanese newspaper has claimed to have learned that Chad demanded more than $10 million in payment not to break relations with China. Chad continues to recognize Taipei and not Beijing. Although possibly not true, it is indicative of the international isolation Taiwan currently faces. Despite having one of the most advanced economies in the world, only about twenty countries recognize it as a sovereign nation, and most of these are poor countries dependent on Taiwan for foreign aid.
