Chen and DPP influence waning, it's up to the Guomindang

Since taking office last year, President Chen Shuibian has accomplished little, and his Democratic Progressive Party suffered a serious setback in last year’s legislative elections, which gave the Pan-Blue alliance a slim legislative majority. That slim majority has been all the Pan Blues have needed to stand in the way of Chen and the DPP accomplishing a number of their objectives, most notably the passing of the Arms Procurement Budget so that Taiwan could purchase weapons from the US to use for its defense.

Undoubtedly, part of the reason for the Pan Blues’ opposition to anything the DPP wants lies in their anger over the results of the 2004 presidential election. Lien Zhan himself is a bitter, selfish, and inept has-been, a loser of two consecutive presidential elections who spent his final months as Guomindang Chairman attempting to boost his lagging credibility, most notably by visiting China and pretending he was the leader of Taiwan.

It wasn’t hard to see through Lien’s plan, and even if he’s right that talks with China need to begin, he never should have tried go over the head of Taiwan’s president, not if he cared about the country anyway. He proved himself to be a divider of the Taiwanese people, and not a unifier, much the way Chen is.

As much as Lien’s visit may deserve to be condemned, it also would help to look at why it happened. Lien’s selfish motivations aside, he’s absolutely right that talks with China need to begin, in one form or another. The hostile standoff that’s been going on for years can’t continue forever, and engaging in a genuine arms race with China is futile, there’s no question about it. Whether purchasing some sophisticated weaponry would deter a potential Chinese attack is up for debate. It’s certainly a costly expenditure.

In any case, the fact is, President Chen’s and the DPP’s vision of an independent Taiwan is as good as dead. Taiwan independence is about as likely as Tibetan independence, and Chen’s antagonistic and blowhard proclamations about the topic, and his talk of changing the country’s name and the constitution certainly contributed to the PRC’s decision to pass the Anti-Secession Law.

The Anti-Secession Law deserves to be condemned for what it is: blatant hostility and aggression from the PRC directed at Taiwan. But to say that it came unprovoked would be ridiculous. Chen and his cohorts have taken great pleasure in provoking the PRC over the years, but perhaps they didn’t expect that their loud mouths would anger the PRC enough to pass the Anti-Secession Law.

From all sides of the Taiwan Strait, Chen Shuibian and the DPP are liabilities, liabilities because they make ridiculous promises that they know they cannot keep, upsetting the people that voted for them and undermining confidence in Taiwan’s democracy, and at the same time infuriating the Communist aggressor on the other side of the Strait.

To make matters worse, Chen has no idea how to conduct diplomacy, and his bungling of the Lien/Song visits showed it. He didn’t know what to say about Lien’s visit, first condemning it, then wishing him luck, and he actually tried to give a message to Song to deliver to Hu Jintao. Why Chen would somehow think Song would be willing to help him when their political views are so different is anyone’s guess, perhaps because of the 10-point agreeement they signed. In any event, it certainly undermined Chen’s credibility. It helps to make clear that Chen made empty promises about independence to win votes in 2004, when he knew very well that it was impossible.

So when the Guomindang says that Chen’s so-called “offers to talk with China” are empty words, they are right. Chen makes the offers knowing full well the PRC has no intention of talking to him. It just gives him an excuse to pat himself on the back as being the good guy whose only true desire is peace. He usually peppers his offers to Hu with some tired sayings about how China should democratize. Yup, and the UN should let Taiwan into the UN too, right? I agree that both would be great, but they are not feasible. I hope Chen isn’t holding his breath. He squandered his chances long ago by establishing himself as a loud-mouth independence advocate lacking diplomatic skills and finesse.

Chen and his associates either haven’t realized or refuse to accept that talks with China require that Taiwan send people to the table with strong diplomatic skills, people who are capable of finessing things, and who won’t be pushed around by China the way Lien and Song allowed themselves to be, but at the same time, won’t make the empty offers that Chen does. Chen’s offers to Hu amount to absolutely nothing except a dull article in the Taipei Times about how China should democratize.

I believe the Taiwanese people are tired of the stand-off, and tired of the DPP’s lagging localization efforts. The more the DPP tries to defend its policies, the less credible they seem. Chen and the DPP are backed into a corner, and can feel the tide turning against them. Hence the relentless barrage of attacks on Ma Yingjiu that appeared in the Taipei Times as soon as he stepped into the roll of Guomindang Chairman.

It’s up to the Guomindang to pursue intelligent policies in the years leading up to the next election that show they are fit to lead the country to a peaceful and prosperous future. The DPP, with its current outlook, stands no chance of talking to China. The Guomindang may be able to, however. But the Guomindang needs to show the Taiwanese people that it’s capable of being the responsible leader of the nation, and not a bunch of disgruntled, reactionary rogues with no respect for the democratic process.

Taiwanese people have shown that what is most important to them is peace, the well-being of their families, and their personal fortunes, not political ideology. “Peace” also doesn’t mean handing Taiwan over to an aggressive China. It means an eventual agreement acceptable to both parties. If they feel that eventual negotiations with China will bring that to them and prevent conflict, they will vote for the Guomindang candidate in 2008. Chen and the DPP have squandered their opportunities. It’s high time for a change.

Again, another thoughtful post from E. Two points

First, to reiterate the content of an earlier post (also a comment on a lengthy piece by E), the Chinese leadership will not negotiate with Taiwan. They have a bad track record with negotiations as a rule (think HK) and, as time is definitely on their side, no reason whatsoever to give Taiwan any ground. A KMT victory in 2008 might permit some kind of cross-strait dialogue (definitely a good thing in and of itself), but it would be extremely idealistic to assume that anything much will come of it (certainly no improvement on the current status quo).

Second, E’s post seems to assume that the DPP is one animal with a distinct set of priorities. Chen is portrayed as heading up a machine that has squander its chances on cross-strait policy, and broken the sacred trust with Taiwanese people to deliver security and xiao kang (basic needs). But just who is CSB and the party he presides over? I think it’s far better to see the DPP as a very loose family of factions, often on the point of rendering itself apart, and CSB as the presiding balancer. This party political reality favors the output of rhetoric over policy substance, and leaves Chen with a lot less authority than his governmental office would suggest. It is reinforced by the blue domination of the LY.

My favorite example of the ‘DPP as divided/Chen as balancer’ model is the three links. Chen has gone hot and cold on this for nearly 4 years now - why the equivocation? Truth be told, the DPP supports both pro and anti 3 links positions (including, welfare alliance vs new wave), and Chen usually backs one particular position when the factions start making noise. His own personal policy agenda is probably more anti 3 links, but early in the piece, and as late as mid 2004 he was talking about ‘introducing the 3 links by the end of 2005.’ Why is he anti 3 links now? Party progressives like Frank Xie etal were gaining ground…

Wait a second, but “Frank” Changting Xie supports three links, so you just undercut your argument of Chen trying to be balancer between factions. It sounds more like he is concerned with who takes credit rather than trying to appease an opposing faction.

guangtou,

The PRC will not negotiate with Taiwan Independence advocates. The PRC has demostrated it can negotiate with other nations over territorial disputes as demostrated with India, Russia, and Vietnam. In fact it has even demostrated the ability to take the lead in complex negotiations like the 6 nations talks of NK nuclear arms development.

History will judge CSB presidency. I for one don’t see much of a legacy for the guy, if he continues on this track.

If CSB is such a great political “balancer” how come he cannot balance the needs of TI supporters and the PRC leadership to come up with a comprehensive policy that can be accepted on both sides of the Strait?

Give me one example of CSB great negotiating skills in action.

CSB talk James Soong into moderating his extremist party platform to conform to the Taiwanese government’s policies.

Talked James Soong into going to China with his “secret” letter. That made CSB look even more foolish because he spent months denying that it ever existed.

No one the pan-Green side seriously supports the 3 links. Even the recent policy change in Matsu and Kinmen to do currency exchange of the RMB with NTD is lip service, since the black market for the currency exchange has existed for years.

99.98 per cent of Taiwanese politicians should be forced to undergo ordeal by stockade, before running for office.

Juvenile prats, for the most part.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]guangtou,

The PRC will not negotiate with Taiwan Independence advocates. The PRC has demostrated it can negotiate with other nations over territorial disputes as demostrated with India, Russia, and Vietnam. In fact it has even demostrated the ability to take the lead in complex negotiations like the 6 nations talks of NK nuclear arms development.

History will judge CSB presidency. I for one don’t see much of a legacy for the guy, if he continues on this track.

If CSB is such a great political “balancer” how come he cannot balance the needs of TI supporters and the PRC leadership to come up with a comprehensive policy that can be accepted on both sides of the Strait?

Give me one example of CSB great negotiating skills in action.[/quote]

AC, thanks for the note. Sorry I can’t deal with the issues you raise in too much depth, however, as I have a report due tonight and it aint gonna wait for noone…

First, on negotiations - I am unfamiliar with the details of the deals closed with India, Russia and Vietnam, so will get back to you once I know what’s what, but would ask in each of these cases, what did the PRC leadership actually give up? A negotiation surely implies a tradeoff, so for me to be wrong (and yes, I’m quite prepared to be so if that’s the case), evidence of some kind of trade is probably required. That is, something lost as well as something gained. Further, these negs were state-to-state - do they represent a legitimate comparison with the Taiwan case given the PRC doesn’t recognize anything here in Taipei as a ‘state.’ I suppose the deal cut with the Brits in the early 1980s also included state-to-state negs, but it surely gets a lot closer to a comparable case than just about anything else we have over the last 30 years. As to the 6-power talks - this may take us even further away from an appropriate case selection as the PRC is not a negotiator here, but a broker between the principle agitators. Not much downside whichever way it goes - more akin to the US in the Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt.

All this said, I must ask you directly, do you really expect the Chinese to offer Taiwan anything more than the Jiang Badian? Why on earth would they? Time is on their side, and they had 10 years to give Gu Zhen-fu something (ANYTHING!) good to bring home and didn’t offer a damn thing. Why, just because it’s MYJ or some other blue representative would they now turn around and become more flexible (i.e. negotiate instead of laying down the law). Careful with your answer - if you say ‘because TI is on the march’ that’s a damn good reason for TI supporters to keep pressing their case…

No, I just see tears and Michael Collins. That is, eventually some sucker, probably a blue and probably MYJ, is going to have to make the journey to Peking and kiss some PRC butt. He’ll come back with the Jiang Badian, and at least 50% of the island will hate it…

Second, on CSB being a balancer - who said anything about him being ‘great’??? I think he’s totally ham fisted. My favorite CSB is the pre-loss-of-Naru president who replaced the ‘no hurry, be patient’ policy on cross-strait economic relations with ‘active opening, effective management.’ It’s been downhill since, but DPP liberals like Xie are still pushing for a return to those days. You may have caught in the press a few months back Xie was moving to give private cargo companies the right to negotiate with the relevant Mainland authorities on the intro of direct cargo exchange. I was excited by this talk, but Chen rode in and nixed the idea before it had time to breath. What can I say? Xin chaoliu has the numbers these days!

PRC gave up territory in exchange to a consensus on the shared boarder thus improving the overall security of PRC.

If that’s the case than TI is no more than a feint pawn, being used by USA and ROC politicians. Their idealogy too, will be traded in exchange for improving the overall security of ROC.

AC - OK for the sake of moving the argument on, you win on the comparisons. If what you say is right, the PRC looks like it has demonstrated negotiation skills. Well argued.

But to return to the central point of my last post, do you really expect the Chinese to offer Taiwan anything more than the Jiang Badian??? Try and answer it straight this time… Just this once. Go on, what have you got to loose?

what a lot of hot air to no purpose. the dpp was a taiwanese independence party from its inception, and chen part of it. no need to elaborate at length on that. they have proven a democratic success but a political failure. the blues won’t deal with it and China won’t talk to it. Chen could deck himself out in blue and red and it wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference. China has no reason to talk to him. blaming chen for that is childish. he can’t just abandon the principles of his party which he was elected under. and to what purpose? comparing this situation to that between china and vietnam or whoever is just ridiculous. taiwan hasn’t got a leg to stand on. no real sovereignty, no international standing. the only thing China is going to listen to is a surrender. “talking” to them is not going to be the almighty panacea. problems do not exist purely because the dpp’s outlook makes it impossible for china to even give them the time of day.

Jiang’s 8 point proposal, given in January 30, 1995 was a reaction to the fact that there was no development to the 1992 consensus in about 3 years.

This was also echoed by LTH six point proposal given in April 1995. Which highlighted creating an environment for reunification.

The turning point in these policies is June 1995 when LTH makes his trip to Cornell. Which sets off a cascade of events that has increase the tension across the Strait ever since.

1999 LTH announces his “2 State” proposal.

By 2005 after CSB is campaigns on a TI platform, the ASL is passed (which is a clarification of point 2 and 4 of Jiang’s 8 points) in the PRC.

So as you can see PRC policy is reacting to TI in a comprehensive manner.

But if you are asking will the PRC offer anything to appease TI leadership on Taiwan? I would say the PRC is learning how to undermine TI constituents with “pork” legislation.

To be quite honest what does TI have to offer the average people of Taiwan these days?

Because of the ASL, my relatives and I had to waste a hot summer weekend in April protesting in Washington DC.

Why is China always like that? :loco:

The only event that a trip to one’s alma mater only sets off is a letter from the alumni association requesting donations. Trips to alma maters do not make countries independent, and reacting by firing missiles is overkill. Being threatened by a military takeover at least requires the leader of the country under attack to call out to the world community (on a German radio station?) that there is a “special state” which is being threatened by a “state” not the internal affairs of one country.

Well, LTH is headed for the US soon, to Washington DC, New York, Cornell, Alaska, etc. Surely, this calls for more missiles; what other reaction could there be, right? :loco:

I’m sure the back room politics that allowed for LTH to come to the USA in the first place must have been interesting.

If I remember correctly firing of the missile was once touted as LTH master plan (?). I mean it was ROC first presidential elections and the DPP were hounding LTH as not being

[quote=“Etheorial”]

Taiwanese people have shown that what is most important to them is peace, the well-being of their families, and their personal fortunes, not political ideology. “Peace” also doesn’t mean handing Taiwan over to an aggressive China. It means an eventual agreement acceptable to both parties. If they feel that eventual negotiations with China will bring that to them and prevent conflict, they will vote for the Guomindang candidate in 2008. Chen and the DPP have squandered their opportunities. It’s high time for a change.[/quote]

Change to what? KMT? Ha! :unamused:

And as far as the Horse goes … the only time you see any action of him is when he smiles on TV …

No, the DPP only became an ‘independence party’ when the New Wave Faction pushed through the independence clause of the party constitution in the early 1990s. The move alienated a lot of people in the movement at the time, who saw the DPP as first and foremost a liberal alternative to the KMT. The 1990s is more or less a story of how these people drifted away from the Party - Xu Xin-liang, Shi Min-de, etc, etc.

It’s not hot air. It’s a debate. I agree the big picture of Taiwan’s situation looks squarely screwed, but that’s not where the real debate is going on with this topic. It’s in the detail that Taiwan will have a chance to prosper, to retain the fruits of its democratic achievements of the last 25 years, or get sold-out to a regime that doesn’t really understand what law is…

Here’s an editorial from today’s “China Post” on the topic.

“The China Post” doesn’t usually feature brilliant journalism, but this editorial isn’t bad, and even if it’s slightly blue-leaning, it’s not so blantantly biased as those normally found in the Toilet Times.

I don’t think you’re going to find a more objective analysis of the problems facing the DPP in English anywhere else.

chinapost.com.tw/p_detail.as … =I&onNews=

[quote=“ac_dropout”]Jiang’s 8 point proposal, given in January 30, 1995 was a reaction to the fact that there was no development to the 1992 consensus in about 3 years.

This was also echoed by LTH six point proposal given in April 1995. Which highlighted creating an environment for reunification.

The turning point in these policies is June 1995 when LTH makes his trip to Cornell. Which sets off a cascade of events that has increase the tension across the Strait ever since.

1999 LTH announces his “2 State” proposal.

By 2005 after CSB is campaigns on a TI platform, the ASL is passed (which is a clarification of point 2 and 4 of Jiang’s 8 points) in the PRC.

So as you can see PRC policy is reacting to TI in a comprehensive manner.

But if you are asking will the PRC offer anything to appease TI leadership on Taiwan? I would say the PRC is learning how to undermine TI constituents with “pork” legislation.

To be quite honest what does TI have to offer the average people of Taiwan these days?[/quote]

Thanks for the history lesson AC, now how about an answer to the question? Will the Chinese offer anything other than the Jiang Badian in negotiations with Taiwan over reunification? It’s a simple querry, and not necessarily related to TI at all. If you want to include that in your response, well and good, but that’s not the specific point of the exercise. I’m asking you to make a guess at what the Chinese will put on the negotiating table. I think they’ll just rerun the Jiang Badian - an option that will probably tear Taiwan in half and fry the poor sucker who has to make the delivery. You obviously know this topic well, so come clean, what do you think?

I think guangtou’s primary - and valid - concern here is what the Taiwanese people would actually get out of any ‘negotation’ with China. As I see it, the issue can be boiled down quite simply:

  1. Chen, whether you, I, China, or anyone else likes it or not, is the current elected president over 23 million Taiwanese.

  2. China refuses to negotiate with the Taiwanese peoples’ elected representive because he disagrees with them. This does not bode well for a fair debate.

  3. China is willing to ‘negotiate’ with those who are willing to perform the diplomatic equivalent of giving away their parents’ house in return for a bar of chocolate.

  4. Yes, the DPP as it stands is putting de jure independence above more important issues at the expense of a possibly favourable resolution. However, the majority of KMT and PFP members have such an intrinsic personal interest in sucking up to China that their involvement is quite frightening. Obviously more inter-party cooperation is sorely needed.

So the PRC wants ‘one China two systems’? Okay, I can deal with that. But the PRC has to accept this as Taiwan’s major concession and offer concessions on the details. I think what the majority of Blues spectacularly miss is that in the Taiwan - China issue, much fewer people care about Taiwan being a sovereign state as those who simply don’t want an authoritarian semi-communist government having any power over them whatsoever. If the KMT are responsible for the ‘two systems’ deal, I promise and guarantee we will see:

  • 50 year limitation on democratic system a la HK - unacceptable
  • the democratic process dismantled to see a pro-Beijing ‘psuedo-elect’
  • eventual governmental creep from Beijing
  • gradual introduction of simplified characters and mainland culture over Taiwanese language and culture
  • ‘soft’ restrictions on media and extreme views

Beijing says they are peaceful. I see the missiles pointed at Taiwan and the extreme cruelty in territorial advances and have to disagree. Beijing says that they are fair negotiators. I look at the record with HK and the Tibetan ‘negotiations’ and have to disagree.

PS - re: the 1992 Consensus, this is an agreement often cited by pro-Beijing advocates as the ‘silver bullet’ in arguments of independence and consistency as if it were a treaty. However, it is not a treaty and is nothing more than verbal agreement between ARATS and SEF of the ‘one China’ principle.

ac_dropout, while I normally disagree with you vehemently, at least you make a better job than most to back up what you say and stay informed. However, I must say that the use of China’s border disputes to demonstrate fairness in PRC negotiating is not one of your finest hours. China has not given anything up as goodwill here. China NEVER gives anything up. They did the maths: cost of maintaining border security x n years > actual value of territory.

This aside, as I mentioned earlier, if the PRC could be seen as a fair negotiating partner then nobody would be having this argument. However, it’s not, and I fear may never be; thus, drives for independence continue. For all its negotiating and diplomatic power, China has screwed up what could have been an easy deal by barging in with its size twelves and expecting everyone to capitulate.