At first I thought I must be hallucinating when I read the headline in the China Post: U.S. defends Taiwan arms sales, upbraids China. "Upbraids China"? How is that possible, I thought. Sure enough, the AFP article cited the actual words of Dep. Sec. of State Negroponte:Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte said Washington had expressed concern to Beijing about its ongoing military buildup on its side of the strait separating the mainland and the Taiwan island.Negroponte said that missiles actually encourage the independence movement that they are supposed to deter. The language used is hardly "upbraiding." For example, Secretary of State Rice branded the DPP's UN referendum as "provocative." In the upside-down world of US-China relations, missiles are "unnecessary" while referendums are "provocative."
"We view China's buildup as unnecessary and counterproductive," he told a congressional hearing.
AP says that the invitation of KMT Chairman Wu Po-hsiung to China is a "sign of warming relations" though offhand I think this is his third official trip there. It would nice if those other trips had been mentioned, though that certainly would have caused head scratching among readers -- if Wu has been there before, how can a visit now be a sign of "warming relations?" What we really have is a sign of normal relations between the two parties proceeding normally.
In an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, Ma made it clear that he has no intention of following Chen's pro-independence path but said unification with China is unlikely "in our lifetimes.''I've been listening in on much commentary in the papers, on email lists, and so on, on what Ma will mean for Taiwan and its future. The "negative view" is that Ma will begin taking steps that will hollow out our democracy at home and bring us too close to China abroad. This is signaled by the chilling pointers to Singapore as a model for Taiwan and other stuff. The "optimistic" view is that Ma will be too hemmed in by splits in his party -- the Lien Chan crowd dislikes him, as do the arch-conservatives and the Taiwanese KMT -- and by events to accomplish much (note that this incorporates the "negative view" -- if Ma could somehow get control of his party, he'd accomplish much damage). Some good things might come out of a Ma reign as well -- during the DPP administration the legislature slashed government departmental budgets in a (successful) attempt to harm the ability of the DPP to govern well. Ironically, with the KMT back in power, the legislature will be forced to expand budgets back to more realistic levels, and many useful projects might receive funding. A hamstrung Ma might even have only a four year reign. Also, I hear pigs may fly....
Over the next couple of years, I've heard, Ma plans to cool down the diplomatic initiatives of the ROC and stop attempting to compete with China. This might mean more room for soft diplomacy, for public diplomacy, it was explained to me. We'll see. I tend to be very pessimistic on what Ma means for Taiwan's democracy -- it seems incredible to me that the KMT will just risk delivering Taiwan back to the DPP at the end of four or eight years in a free and fair election. Guess we'll find out....
EVENT: David Reid of David on Formosa reminds me that...
Amnesty is also holding a screening of a documentary about a football match between the Danish and Tibetan teams which the Chinese tried to stop. The screening is tonight (5/17) at Bliss in Taipei.China attempted to stop this football match because, as we all know, China never politicizes sporting events.....
[Taiwan]
12 comments:
it seems incredible to me that the KMT will just risk delivering Taiwan back to the DPP at the end of four or eight years in a free and fair election
I'm not sure what the KMT will do now that they couldn't have done when they controlled the legislative with the help of the PFP. All they can do is increase spending, which during an economic slow-down would increase borrowing and cause other problems.
Anything apart from that is paranoia. Singapore has a unique political system because of the way it developed - it was never a true democracy. It's a lot more difficult to cut away existing freedoms than refuse to hand them over in the first place.
I'm not sure what the KMT will do now that they couldn't have done when they controlled the legislative with the help of the PFP.
Well, there was the little issue of the DPP controlling the executive branch!
Anything apart from that is paranoia.Yes it is rather silly to think that a president with a lifelong commitment to suppressing democracy, supported by a party that has done its best to attack and hollow out the island's democratic institutions, cooperating with the authoritarian power across the strait, might negatively impact the development of democracy on Taiwan. I must be paranoid to imagine that! Silly me! I'll go take the blue pill now.
Michael
Well, there was the little issue of the DPP controlling the executive branch!
So? The KMT could still change the law. Without a presidential veto the KMT could have passed any law they wanted to.
a president with a lifelong commitment to suppressing democracy]
Really? If it's soooo obvious you're saying Taiwanese are pretty dim, in which case they deserve what they vote for. And don't blame the media. If someone is obvious to you it is obvious to everyone.
done its best to attack and hollow out the island's democratic institutions
Institutions which it originally set up. Not as if it was outsed through a revolution and then was allowed to stand in elections. It has interfered in some respects, but that does not mean it is now going to change the law so that it will never lose an election again.
cooperating with the authoritarian power across the strait
So just boycott China because it's autocratic? If the DPP wanted to have a policy position that meant China would't talk with it, that was it's choice. But if the KMT had a different attitude that made relations possible then that was also its choice.
might negatively impact the development of democracy on Taiwan
BUZZ! Michael, that's not what you said. You implied that the KMT will change the law and/or fix the 2012/2016 elections to stay in power. That's not the same as saying the KMT may decide to not advance the current level of democracy in Taiwan.
Don't move the goalposts.
Raj, if you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being paranoid, then you can hardly expect anything but sarcasm and satire in response. Let me know when you want to have a serious discussion.
We all know that diplomacy is the tact and skill necessary in dealing with people and nations, so tentative language is mostly used, and bluntness avoided.
However, I think Negroponte’s language is verging on bluntness, or at least, it’s directly and unambiguously critical.
Consider the difference between “the buildup is unnecessary” and the more diplomatic: “the build up isn’t very (or quite) necessary.”
Most people would feel, arguably, that the first example sounds more negative and perhaps harsher than the latter. Perhaps not an “upbraid”, but compared to some of the other language between China and the US, I’d say it comes close.
Oh, on a related note, let me share this interesting excerpt from a recently released US State Dept transcript from a 1973 meeting between Kissinger and Mao:
Kissinger (to Mao): “You have a more direct, maybe a more heroic mode of action than we do. We sometimes have to use more complicated methods because of our domestic situation. But on our fundamental objectives we will act very decisively and without regard for public opinion. So if a real danger develops or hegemonic intentions become active, we will certainly resist them wherever they appear. And as the president said to the chairman, in our own interests, not as a kindness to anyone else.”
if you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being paranoid
I very rarely accuse anyone of being paranoid. You're quite plainly exaggerating.
Let me know when you want to have a serious discussion.
I always want a serious discussion, though I think sometimes you prefer to stay emotional and silly because it ensures you can stop the topic in its tracks before it gets anywhere.
You very much do not like the KMT and cannot believe anything good will come out of it. You are entitled to your view on that, and I am not going to say that it would be a net-plus for Taiwan in the next four years or so. But the key point remains - I have seen no evidence to suggest that they will suddenly make it impossible/near-impossible for the DPP to regain power by changing the law or otherwise illegally fixing elections. They have never lost control of the legislative with the help of their allies.
Now if you want to explain how gaining control of the executive suddenly gives them overwhelming power to do as they please, I would like to hear it. Otherwise I'm willing to give them a chance to at least show that they're not going to regress Taiwan into what is effectively a one-party state.
I always want a serious discussion, though I think sometimes you prefer to stay emotional and silly because it ensures you can stop the topic in its tracks before it gets anywhere.
That's not what I've seen from you lately. Your comments here have become increasingly intemperate and irrational.
A large number of extremely knowledgeable people share my pessimism. This is not "paranoia" but rational evaluation based on current and past events.
But the key point remains - I have seen no evidence to suggest that they will suddenly make it impossible/near-impossible for the DPP to regain power by changing the law or otherwise illegally fixing elections. They have never lost control of the legislative with the help of their allies.
Yes, I know you haven't seen it, raj. Somehow you missed the KMT attempt to gain control of the CEC -- by holding up the budget -- even though there is a (Peking Duck thread on The Real Nature of the KMT. Does this mean the poster is "paranoid, emotional, and silly?" Or what?) You don't know of the extensive abuses of the referendum voting this time around but you certainly must be aware of the ones the last time around (the current report from the election observers is not out yet but I got a heads up). AFAIK you have never attended an election here yourself. So really, what you are saying is: "Although I don't know anything, and I don't follow events, nevertheless I am completely sure of my position." And then you wonder why I don't want to grapple with faith statements, and you are certain it must be because I am emotional and silly -- because the alternative can't be embraced.
And if you send me a private email, I'll flip you some interesting information about the 3/22 voting patterns.
Now if you want to explain how gaining control of the executive suddenly gives them overwhelming power to do as they please, I would like to hear it.
Have you not been following events? They now have overwhelming power to do as they please, something that has been emphasized by all commentators on the incoming administration. KMT writers repeatedly invoke Singapore as a model -- for example, this piece in the China Post.
The legislature cannot be held up by the DPP's former control of 1/3, and its grip on the executive (that was another thing you missed in your comments on the LY during the DPP period). There is no effective opposition anywhere. That is the main difference. In the past the DPP had some leverage in the legislature....but now they have overwhelming power to do as they please. Success may well make them split up into competing factions....but it may not.
Otherwise I'm willing to give them a chance to at least show that they're not going to regress Taiwan into what is effectively a one-party state.
Well, we're all giving them a chance :). Not much choice in that!
Michael
Somehow you missed the KMT attempt to gain control of the CEC
I didn't miss it at all. I was very concerned by the fact they held the budget up. But in the Peking Duck post I was saying the KMT was wrong to want to reform the system by holding the budget hostage. As it was the DPP has lost the chance to have input on the next CEC as the KMT can now nominate all the members.
you don't know of the extensive abuses of the referendum voting this time around
Actually, I did pay attention to it.
you are certain it must be because I am emotional and silly
Making comments like:
So really, what you are saying is: "Although I don't know anything, and I don't follow events, nevertheless I am completely sure of my position."
is a bit silly. I might not have the experiences that you do, but in some respects that can be a good thing. I'm neutral and don't take sides, even if I have sympathy for the DPP.
I respect what you have to say otherwise I wouldn't come here to read it, even if I don't agree all the time.
They now have overwhelming power to do as they please
They still had a lot of power in the legislative. What has changed since they took the executive? You're quite happy to say I know nothing, so tell me what is going to happen now.
KMT writers repeatedly invoke Singapore as a model
Who says they are saying they want to change the law to cement their power? They may be trying to emulate the PAP's "success" in terms of campaigning and governance. They might be getting greedy - who knows?
Well, we're all giving them a chance :)
Well the piece I quoted at the end of your blog entry didn't sound like that! ;)
Not much choice in that!
That's the nature of democracy, sadly. We've had the Labour Party since 1997 and will probably have to wait until 2010 to eject them.
I didn't miss it at all. I was very concerned by the fact they held the budget up. But in the Peking Duck post I was saying the KMT was wrong to want to reform the system by holding the budget hostage. As it was the DPP has lost the chance to have input on the next CEC as the KMT can now nominate all the members.
Yes, but the whole point is that KMT willingness to pack the CEC with its people to gain control over the elections -- and to use the budget as leverage -- is the kind of thing us "paranoids" find indicative.
So I can take it then that you don't find a post entitled "KMT reveals its true colors" as paranoid and emotional. Or is it paranoid and emotional only when it appears on this blog?
They still had a lot of power in the legislative. What has changed since they took the executive?
How many times do I have to repeat it? The DPP can no longer hold up/block legislation because it doesn't control 1/3 of the legislature. And it can no longer ameliorate/put off/stop damage because it does not control the executive. This was a change so massive that everyone reported on it and fear of one-party rule became an issue for both parties in the election. What is not clear about that, RaJ?
You're quite happy to say I know nothing, so tell me what is going to happen now.
I have. But last time around I was "paranoid."
Who says they are saying they want to change the law to cement their power? They may be trying to emulate the PAP's "success" in terms of campaigning and governance.
How did the PAP achieve their success electorally? We both know how. During the 1980s, the KMT leadership debated using the Singapore lawsuit model against dissidents in Taiwan -- Chen Shui-bian went to jail under one of those. The same people are still around. And when they talk about Singapore, it scares me.
Michael
And here's another thing that pisses me off, since we're talking. After listing the possibility of positives in the blog -- giving the opinions of others + a little analysis of the possibilities, I note that my own view was pessimistic. Despite a balanced paragraph that took in several possibilities, nevertheless for holding the view that a Ma presidency will do grave damage to Taiwan's democracy, I become "paranoid." Not merely paranoid but "anything apart" from your view that "all they can do is increase spending" is "paranoia." That's it? And then you wonder why I give you short shrift.
Michael
The KMT has always held a majority of the legislature but this time is different.
1) They now hold 3/4s and the pan-Blues can single-handedly ammend the constitution.
2) Even though Lee Teng-hui was KMT, we have to remember a lot of people think (and his own people also say) that he was really very Machiavellian and pro-independence, pro-democracy, pro-reform, pro-Taiwanese all along. You know, basically everything he did to change the political system helped the DPP and the opposition. Then there's 8 years of DPP that led to further political liberalization. It's been a long time since someone right-wing and conservative like Ma has seen presidential executive power in Taiwan. Ma now has complete power. Raj claims that he won't use it. Michael fears that he will. The fact is, there is nothing in the SYSTEM that prevents him from doing it. We are relying on him being a nice philosopher-king. No checks. No balances.
3) Ma is on the record for being anti-popular elections, anti-independence, anti-DPP (not just, I don't agree with you but having been a student spy reporting on fellow Taiwanese students--the results of this included harassment of students' families back in Taiwan, canceling of "return visas" to Taiwan, jailings, and killings). Never has he ever in any statement ever shown a single bit of remorse for any of these things. He has repeatedly shown that he has the inclination and sympathy for the authoritarian era back then and for the current authoritarian Singapore model. Why aren't you scared?
Very rarely do we see the George Washingtons, the independent farmer republicans that step away from power itself. Repeatedly, people see themselves as savior, and for the sake of everyone else, will make a grab for power, to "make the world a better place". If anyone follows American politics--Franklin Roosevelt and a more recent example Eliot Spitzer come to mind. People, esp politicians with ideologies (and boy, is Ma ideological), don't give up the chance for more power when they can grab it.
Or is it paranoid and emotional only when it appears on this blog?
Not at all. The point made on PD was that the KMT were putting self-interest ahead of the nation's by blocking the budget for so long. That's not the same thing as what you were theorising about.
The DPP can no longer hold up/block legislation because it doesn't control 1/3 of the legislature.
It could only delay legislation for a few months - does it still count as a caucus for the purposes of consultations on bills?
The only way it could block bills was to physically stop the votes taking place - that wasn't good, even if the bills weren't good either.
How did the PAP achieve their success electorally?
In part they stacked the system in their favour, but in another they made a slick election machine that routinely rotated in fresh new faces. The PAP may have made it very difficult for opponents to gain political momentum, but it remains fairly popular even so - I have to admit that, as much as I think Singapore needs reform.
As for law suits, I'm sure over the last year or so I read about similar actions in Taiwan filed by the KMT (and maybe DPP too) which generally failed either at first instance or on appeal.
Post a Comment