US pro-KMT Interference in Taiwan's Elections

[Charlie_Jack]

This is an attempt to balance my one-sided response to a post by @HongKonger. I’m posting it here because it would be 'way off-topic in the thread in which my earlier response took place.

The former diplomat, Douglas H. Paal, who was the American government’s de facto ambassador to Taiwan from 2002 to 2006, told a Taiwanese television station that a victory by Tsai Ing-wen, who is opposing President Ma Ying-jeou in the election on Saturday, could threaten the stability of the region.

Mr. Paal suggested that Washington was unhappy with Ms. Tsai and her tougher approach to dealing with China, Taiwan’s longtime nemesis across the Taiwan Strait.

Andrew Jacobs, “Former U.S. Diplomat Rattles Taiwan Before Election,” New York Times, January 13, 2012

Here’s a Google search results page which should contain a link to the New York Times article.

An unnamed senior US official told the Financial Times in September last year that the US was concerned that a win by then-DPP presidential candidate Tsai could “jeopardize” cross-strait stability.

–Chris Wang, “ANALYSIS: DPP eyes better relations with US in the future,” Taipei Times, July 9, 2012

Here’s a Google search results page which should contain a link to the Financial Times article.

[Former AIT Chairman Richard] Bush, director of the Center for East Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, last week told a Washington conference that the US government “at some time and in some way will express itself on the implications of the 2016 election for US interests.”

“This is something we do. We feel there is a need for us to express our views on how our interests will be affected by Taiwan’s elections,” he said.

Bush’s remarks were widely interpreted as meaning that Washington would try to interfere in the next presidential election and put its thumb on the scales in favor of the party whose policies it favors most.

–William Lowther / Staff reporter, “Washington says Bush’s Taiwan remarks his own,” Taipei Times, September 18, 2014

[former American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) managing director Barbara] Schrage told a conference on US-Taiwan relations hosted by the Heritage Foundation that Tsai was unable to clarify Washington’s doubts about her China policy when she visited the US in September 2011 as the DPP’s candidate for the 2012 presidential election, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported. “What the administration wanted to hear was what was her specific plan for dealing with the cross-strait issue, and frankly she was very disappointing in that area,” CNA quoted Schrage as saying.

–Shih Hsiu-chuan / Staff reporter,“Ex-US official out of order: DPP,” Taipei Times, March 22, 2015

[afterspivak]

Ah, the 2012 election. Somehow, when Tsai visited the US before that election, lots of people there were loudly unhappy with her. I don’t know what happened. But I do wonder whether those US state department folks were pleased to have four more years of Ma, which is of course what they got. By the end of Ma’s second term, the AIT folks I met and chatted with had evidently seen enough.

Guy

[Charlie_Jack]

@afterspivak

By the end of Ma’s second term, the AIT folks I met and chatted with had evidently seen enough.

Yes, and that reminds me of another kind of one-way street, from the US to the KMT. This article is about the Pan-Blue response to Stephen Young’s urging the Ma Administration Pan Blue Coalition to make certain weapons purchases. Except for Wang Jin-pyng, who indicated a desire to co-operate, the responses ranged from an Antebellum-Southern-style critique of Young’s tone by Ma Ying-jeou to a PFP member’s demand for an apology from Young:

Young praised, vilified by parties - Taipei Times

One independent Legislator wanted Young to be deported:

Young urges passage of arms budgets - Taipei Times

The most interesting response came from Legislator Kao-Chin:

She said she will mobilize 1,000 people to apply for U.S. visas at the AIT Monday in order to stall the de facto American embassy’s operations.

She claimed the Americans were dreaming of building up a “Pacific empire,” and had sent Young as an “underground governor” to Taiwan to help Chen keep his presidency until 2008.

–China Post Staff, “Arms bill blocked despite U.S. threat,” China Post, November 1, 2006 (retrieved from the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine)

[HongKonger]

This is ancient history. Circa 2010 Xi Jinping wasn’t a lifetime dictator yet, and the US was still trying to get on China’s good side. It was in the US interest at the time to have the KMT in power.

I’m talking present day. The US has been trying to rally everybody they can to stand up to China (I’d say that started around 2015 when it became evident that China was not going to play by their rules), so the DPP became their best friend.

Until Xi backs down, or the DPP decides to go soft on China, I’d say the US and the DPP will remain close friends for some time to come.

[Charlie_Jack]

@HongKonger

This is ancient history.

Indeed it is. The articles I posted are vintage articles–one might even call them legacy articles–ranging from seven to sixteen years old.

[afterspivak]

@Charlie_Jack

This article is about the Pan-Blue response to Stephen Young’s urging the Ma Administration to make certain weapons purchases.

A very helpful post. But 2006 was not during the Ma administration; it was during the end of the Chen administration, which never once controlled the legislative yuan. The blue side kept blocking the purchase of weapons from the US during this time. This was during Premier Su’s first round as premier—one of a rotating band cycled in and out during the Chen presidency. This is what he said at that time:

Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) told reporters that Young’s comments simply highlighted the problem.

“[Then AIT representative Stephen] Young is very friendly to Taiwan. He cares about the relationship between Taiwan and the US a lot,” Su said when approached by reportersfor a comment.

“He pointed out where the problem is. However, the problem could be solved as soon as our [pan-blue dominated] legislature approves this proposal,” Su said.

Su added that the US government approved the proposed arms sales more than five years ago. It is quite embarrassing that the Taiwanese government could not repay this favor because the budget is still pending at the legislature, he said.

“It is like … we did some grocery shopping but did not pay our bills and our debt has been outstanding for five years,” Su said.

He also mentioned that the military has not upgraded its weapons system over the past five years, while the Chinese military has kept increasing its annual budget.

Then and now, Premier Su is awesome.

Guy

[Charlie_Jack]

@afterspivak

@Charlie_Jack

This article is about the Pan-Blue response to Stephen Young’s urging the Ma Administration to make certain weapons purchases.

A very helpful post. But 2006 was not during the Ma administration; it was during the end of the Chen administration. . . .

Thanks for telling me!

You’re probably not going to believe this, but I briefly noticed that but just didn’t do anything about. Maybe I forgot it.

I should have just written KMT or better, Pan Blue Coalition, since it included at least non-KMT members (and an independent? I wonder if he was part of Pan Blue).

Now I’ll go fix it. Thanks again.

Edited to add: That’s after the Pan Green Coalition lost its majority, right? Edited to add again: Yikes, you said they never had a majority. I didn’t forget that one, I just didn’t know it.

[afterspivak]

The pan green side did not control the legislature for one minute of President Chen’s eight years in office.

They only got control of the legislative branch in 2016 (and held it in 2020), enabling the Tsai administration to actually get things done.

Guy

[Charlie_Jack]

@afterspivak

The pan green side did not control the legislature for one minute of President Chen’s eight years in office.

I want to be clear that I’m not disputing with you. I just want to clear up my own confusion.

Okay, now that I’ve got it down that the Pan Green never had a majority, I need to consider why they considered the 2004 Legislative Election to be a defeat. Please tell me if Wikipedia is accurate on this:

Although the pan-green coalition improved both their seat totals and their vote percentage over the last election, the legislative elections were widely interpreted as a major defeat for the pan-green coalition, given their goal of gaining a majority of seats in the Legislative Yuan. In the aftermath of the election, Chen Shui-bian resigned as chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party and was replaced by Su Tseng-Chang.

–2004 Taiwanese legislative election - Wikipedia

So they didn’t have a majority to begin with, and their loss in 2004 was in failing to obtain one?

[afterspivak]

Yes!

Guy

[Charlie_Jack]

@afterspivak

Yes!

Thanks! And thanks for all your corrections, information, and explanations!

–C. B. Jack

[Explant]

@Charlie_Jack

This is an attempt to balance my one-sided response to a post by @Alan85. I’m posting it here because it would be 'way off-topic in the thread in which my earlier response took place.

The former diplomat, Douglas H. Paal, who was the American government’s de facto ambassador to Taiwan from 2002 to 2006, told a Taiwanese television station that a victory by Tsai Ing-wen, who is opposing President Ma Ying-jeou in the election on Saturday, could threaten the stability of the region.

Mr. Paal suggested that Washington was unhappy with Ms. Tsai and her tougher approach to dealing with China, Taiwan’s longtime nemesis across the Taiwan Strait.

Andrew Jacobs, “Former U.S. Diplomat Rattles Taiwan Before Election,” New York Times, January 13, 2012

Here’s a Google search results page which should contain a link to the New York Times article.

An unnamed senior US official told the Financial Times in September last year that the US was concerned that a win by then-DPP presidential candidate Tsai could “jeopardize” cross-strait stability.

–Chris Wang, “ANALYSIS: DPP eyes better relations with US in the future,” Taipei Times, July 9, 2012

Here’s a Google search results page which should contain a link to the Financial Times article.

[Former AIT Chairman Richard] Bush, director of the Center for East Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, last week told a Washington conference that the US government “at some time and in some way will express itself on the implications of the 2016 election for US interests.”

“This is something we do. We feel there is a need for us to express our views on how our interests will be affected by Taiwan’s elections,” he said.

Bush’s remarks were widely interpreted as meaning that Washington would try to interfere in the next presidential election and put its thumb on the scales in favor of the party whose policies it favors most.

–William Lowther / Staff reporter, “Washington says Bush’s Taiwan remarks his own,” Taipei Times, September 18, 2014

[former American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) managing director Barbara] Schrage told a conference on US-Taiwan relations hosted by the Heritage Foundation that Tsai was unable to clarify Washington’s doubts about her China policy when she visited the US in September 2011 as the DPP’s candidate for the 2012 presidential election, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported. “What the administration wanted to hear was what was her specific plan for dealing with the cross-strait issue, and frankly she was very disappointing in that area,” CNA quoted Schrage as saying.

–Shih Hsiu-chuan / Staff reporter,“Ex-US official out of order: DPP,” Taipei Times, March 22, 2015

It was pretty disgusting how pro china the US was and siding with Ma, who is arguably the worst thing to happen to taiwan for a while. This change of affairs is one of the few things trump got amazingly right in my opinion. At least more sothan other recent US presidents. Pandering to the status quo with china is about as naive as it can get.

[Charlie_Jack]

@afterspivak

Then and now, Premier Su is awesome.

What he said was true, easy to understand, and on point. For a politician, that is pretty awesome.

[afterspivak]

@Explant

Ma, who is arguably the worst thing to happen to taiwan for a while

I don’t disagree. But he does deserve credit for taking the keys away from the DPP, forcing the latter to then up their game.

He also deserves credit for alienating the so-called “local” wing of the KMT so much that the party has still not recovered.

Guy

[Explant]

@afterspivak

@Explant

Ma, who is arguably the worst thing to happen to taiwan for a while

I don’t disagree. But he does deserve credit for taking the keys away from the DPP, forcing the latter to then up their game.

He also deserves credit for alienating the so-called “local” wing of the KMT so much that the party has still not recovered.

Guy

I agree with that point. I use it often in other circumstances in the sense that people wont change until they hit rock bottom.

However it isnt great that our species requires a rock bottom to implement measures we knew we needed to do beforehand as a whole. In this sense, still bad. but a necessary bad as far as our current state of culture.

I am hopeful for a day when we dont need these retardations in order to choose to evolve