The Taipei Times had a wonderful little ditty from Charles Snyder, who's leaving his post as the paper's excellent Washington reporter (heartfelt thanks for all the wonderful reporting over the years, Mr. Snyder). This piece covered the recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report that shows the US is suddenly experiencing the first exciting chills of that OMG what have we done? feeling...
“While US policy favors improvements in Taiwan-PRC [People’s Republic of China] relations, it has been silent on what should be the speed, depth, and degree of cross-strait conciliation,” the report said.
“Some observers worry that the KMT [Chinese Nationalist Party] government, driven by economic imperatives and pressures from the Taiwan business community, quickly could reach an accommodation with Beijing that may complicate US regional interests,” it said.
You know the situation sucks when your chief joy upon seeing it is being able to say I told you so when what you really wanted to say was I'm so glad you came round to my point of view before all this happened. China may not have liked the DPP but at least it had a pragmatic and hardnosed foreign policy whose lines were fairly clearly drawn. By contrast, no one knows where the limits are for Ma, who, after all, remains formally committed to the eradication of an independent Taiwan. Yet the US attacked Chen and the DPP, and supported Ma. The uncertainty for the US will only grow worse, because Ma's forward progress is exactly the kind of forward motion that keeps accelerating right up until the edge of the abyss.... mmbbeeep-bbbeeeep.
My favorite part of the summary is here:
The report also called for a strengthened Democratic Progressive Party as an effective opposition to KMT rule.
“Many feel that US interests in having Taiwan remain a full-fledged democracy may be compromised should the opposition remain too feeble effectively to monitor and hold accountable the majority party,” the report said.
Yes, after roundly abusing the DPP in two elections, and bragging about how it helped lever Ma Ying-jeou into power, suddenly the US is worried the DPP might be too weak to effectively monitor the KMT.
Let's see that game plan again.... on this side we pushed Ma forward because his KMT is going to "make peace" with China, while on this side we helped impair one of the most effective checks on the KMT's power: a viable opposition party. And then suddenly we worry that maybe Ma and the KMT might go too far....
Sure.......
[Taiwan]
23 comments:
Amen, brother!
Look carefully. Mom's helmet is not fastened so she can quickly pass it to the one who is going to hit the road the hardest. So she really does care! Geoff
大大尼說的對啦
萬一有差錯的話
小孩怎麼辦呢?
"Yes, after roundly abusing the DPP in two elections, and bragging about how it helped lever Ma Ying-jeou into power, suddenly the US is worried the DPP might be too weak to effectively monitor the KMT."
Wrong, the DPP's current predicament is entirely self inflicted. The US may have had its preferences (again, due to the DPP's actions), but it did not injure the DPP. In fact, had the DPP taken US advice during the CSB regime, the DPP would unquestionably be in great shape today.
The US may have had its preferences (again, due to the DPP's actions), but it did not injure the DPP.
You're right. It didn't injure the DPP. It just tried to get other party's politicians elected. In 2004 and 2008.
Michael
Damn Geoff, you're so right! How could i have missed that!
Michael
Disappointment in Ma, whether by the US or the Taiwanese who voted for Ma, does not necessarily represent increased support for the DPP or the TI cause. Yes, Taiwanese Ma voters are not very happy these days, but there is absolutely no evidence (and plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary) that now they feel they should have voted for Hsieh or long for the "good old days" of DPP rule. If anything, the US and the Taiwanese Ma voters probably wish for the good old days of Chaing Ching-kuo, a reliable US ally who presided over Taiwan's greatest period of prosperity.
I personally found the US policy contradicting themselves greatly a lot of times. I won't go to great details but I am sure people notice them if they look at what the US government and organizations say and do about Taiwan's situation in the past 10 years objectively.
I like DPP more than KMT, but yea, I would say the current situation DPP is in is mainly caused by DPP itself and by considerable KMT attacks. Outside influence from the US and China are there but I would also say they are not the decisive factor. However, I think that in some situation, knowingly or unkowningly, when the US try to be fair to both parties they actually help out the KMT...1 good examples is the military purchase stagnation situation.
In my opinion these kind of weird multi-faces behaviors of the US are caused by lobbyists of different interest groups in Washington DC. And unfortunately I think there are a lot of people in the US understand and represent the interests of China and the US itself, but few understand and represent the interests of Taiwan.
"It just tried to get other party's politicians elected. In 2004 and 2008."
Well... Mr. M.T. I am not sure exactly what your government did to try to get KMT elected? I certainly wasn't influenced by anything that your government said or did when I voted KMT in the last three elections.
DPP has been digging its own grave since 2006. Let's not look far, just look at the current development. How many percent of Taiwanese do you think still support CSB, 5%, 6%, 7% or 8%? I will give you that 8% Taiwanese are still hard core CSB supporters as of today. As I had predicted, DPP politicians are once again circling around CSB instead of making a clean break from him because of those tiny fraction of hard core CSB supporters. Tsai is such a weak leader that she can't rein in the pro CSB faction within DPP. My conclusion: CSB doesn’t care about DPP and DPP doesn’t really care about Taiwan’s democracy, or they would have chosen more rational course of actions to make sure that DPP can survive such a scandal and stay strong.
Unfortunately, I think pro CSB politicians are going to have their way and that is the END of DPP as a viable opposition party. DPP will become the permanent minority party in Taiwan for decades much like the Labor Party of Britain before Tony Blair.
It’s all self inflicted; it’s not 阿共啊的陰謀啦! :)
Well... Mr. M.T. I am not sure exactly what your government did to try to get KMT elected? I certainly wasn't influenced by anything that your government said or did when I voted KMT in the last three elections.
Welll... you weren't influenced, so clearly nothing happened. With logic like that, no wonder you're a pro-Blue troll.
I suggest you peruse the statements of Bader, Bush, and Paal available on this blog, plus the various articles discussing US attempts to favor the KMT in 2004 as well. The issue is not really whether they were successful but the fact of the attempt to favor the KMT over the DPP. It was US policy to reduce the electoral chances of the DPP. Now they are complaining that they can't walk after shooting themselves in the foot.
I agree that the DPP has done itself a world of harm over the years, but that is not the issue in this blog post.
Michael
As pointed out above, the consensus I'm still getting from Taiwanese that I know that were supporters of Ma, or not-supporters of DPP for this election, are not too happy with Ma, but they still compare him to CSB and as a result they still say Ma was the right choice as Hsieh was an inevitable continuation of "bad economy" by the DPP and CSB. Taking a turn here, but sounds like the inevitable continuation, if McCain wins, of the "bad economy" by the Republicans and Bush in the U.S. doesn't it? :)
Anyways, more damage will have to be done by Ma to anger a lot more people before they start jumping off that wagon. Right now CSB is still in their minds, especially since apparently CSB is still parading around Taiwan? I'd say support for CSB is and should basically only be his family. He needs to get out of the public-light and just retire with the money he got and save Taiwan a lot of trouble.
Just out of curiosity, Michael, which US presidential candidate do you think will more likely to reform/improve US foreign policy on Taiwan? My mother seems to think that The Republican Party has a better track record of defending democracy in Taiwan. However, my take is more similar to your commentary in which, collectively, the US has been focusing more on appeasing China, instead of championing democracy in Taiwan. Consequently, do you think McCain/Palin's seemingly definitive and aggressive view on the role of US in international affairs would be more beneficial to the Taiwanese people than Obama/Biden's "diplomatic" approach, as the latter may opt for peace at all costs and put Taiwan's cause on the back burner?
anon:
You have a brainwashed view of Taiwan's economic history. First, Taiwan's past high level of growth is in part exaggerated by that time period's high level of inflation--everything seemed to grow so fast because prices were going up for everything too.
Second, that was unique opportunity in history where Russia, Eastern Europe, China, and to an extent India all completely took themselves out of the worldwide economic game. Once they decided they wanted to play too, wages and jobs were sucked away very rapidly from developed nations. You can see quite a bit of parallels between the stagnation in wages in the US and in Taiwan for the past 10 years.
Third, let's be honest here and point out some obvious things about Taiwan-US relations of that time: 1) the US broke off relations with Taiwan 2) never let Taiwan have nuclear weapons, which would've assured its security for good (see Israel for what the US does for a real ally, who by the way is given money by the US to buy weapons instead of settling for overpriced weapons). The relationship must have been really good then, huh?
Last, Taiwan's development in the areas of education, media, and finance were greatly restricted under the authoritarian regime. The lack of top-tier private universities, the continued burden of national companies (China Steel, China airlines, many, many banks) means that Taiwan is much less prepared for the world beyond low-wage contract manufacturing than it really should be. Those were decades lost under the authoritarian, martial law era, and though the good news is catching up is easier than ever, the continued weakness of Taiwan's service industry is a big sign of past hampered development.
In fact, had the DPP taken US advice during the CSB regime, the DPP would unquestionably be in great shape today.
I think that's the point. When someone threatens to punch you in the face if you don't follow their orders, and then they punch you in the face for not following their orders, you obviously would have been better off following their orders.
But what kind of orders was the U.S. giving? Telling Taiwan to pretend it is not an independent state? Telling Taiwan to pretend it is part of China so that it will be easier for China to get international support for a takeover?
The DPP did the right thing in standing up for Taiwan, even if it cost the DPP politically.
If that DPP had been destroyed by resisting the U.S., leaving the KMT unopposed, then resisting the U.S. would have been a tactical mistake. But the DPP's destruction is largely a matter of stupid mistakes and failure to seize opportunities. My favorite example: the pandas. The Chinese gave a great propaganda victory to the DPP and the DPP rejected it. They should have accepted the Pandas, pointing out the relevent international organization's rules forbidding international sale of endangered species doesn't apply because Taiwan is not in those organizations). Once the Panda's hit Taiwanese soil they should have pointed out how Chen's hard-nosed diplomacy was bearing fruit. Then they should have renamed the Pandas to something appropriate like "Freedom" and "Independence", demonstrating just how independent Taiwan is because the Chines can't do anything about the renaming. Then Chen should have had his photo taken with the Pandas (and a nice green background) and widely distributed.
Instead, the DPP said "we don't to look good, we'll let the KMT look good instead". That's not the U.S.'s fault.
I don't know if the DPP will survive, but their is the TSU. And there remains support for Taiwan independence so another party will grow if none of the current parties will support it. Taiwan's future does not depend on one political party. The question isn't whether the DPP will survive, but will democracy and freedom of speech survive. If they do, then the cause will outlive the party.
“It was US policy to reduce the electoral chances of the DPP. “
I think the DPP was deliberately provoking the US to make statements critical of the DPP. I can recall many many speeches where CSB played up his defiance of the US with great melodrama in an apparent effort to stir up Taiwanese nationalism for the DPP’s benefit. Also I heard many pro DPP radio stations engage in vicious anti US attacks with the message being that because the US supports the KMT, Taiwanese should vote for the DPP.
“Now they are complaining that they can't walk after shooting themselves in the foot.”
The US is disappointed because they thought the KMT would be more like the traditional rabidly anti-communist KMT. There is absolutely no evicence that the US government has any nostalgia for the CSB years or wishes that Hsieh had been elected instead of Ma. The KMT has a decades long security relationship with the US and has intimate knowledge of mainland China and its leaders. The DPP are amateurs.
>>>>>>
Welll... you weren't influenced, so clearly nothing happened. With logic like that, no wonder you're a pro-Blue troll.
<<<<<<
Years of reading Taiwan forums tells me: whenever you see someone who claims to be "not blue not green," 99% he or she is pro-blue.
After seeing it for about a decade, this is still something that puzzles me.
I guess many people think in a way pro-bluers think, but they just don't realize that.
The KMT has a decades long security relationship with the US and has intimate knowledge of mainland China and its leaders. The DPP are amateurs.
Perhaps, but in case you haven't noticed, KMT China policy is a joke. DPP China policy was much better for the island.
Although I see where you are coming from with A-bian tweaking the US nose.
Michael
"because the Chines can't do anything about the renaming. "
This is a minor point, but you should be aware that China doesn't give pandas. All pandas and their offspring are on loan. Therefore nobody can rename a panda or present a panda in a way that China finds objectionable, otherwise, the panda will just be taken back. You are right about the stupid mistakes and missed opportunities, however, the pandas are not one of them.
"Runsun said...
Years of reading Taiwan forums tells me: whenever you see someone who claims to be "not blue not green," 99% he or she is pro-blue."
Well, shouldn't the pro-green folks be reaching out to those who think of themselves as independents and trying to win them over rather than circling their wagons and preaching to the choir (in Hoklo)?
This is a minor point, but you should be aware that China doesn't give pandas. All pandas and their offspring are on loan.
If I understood the situation correctly, China was planning to give the Panda's to Taiwan, not loan them as they do to other countries. The fact that it was to be a gift rather than a loan was the reason Chen gave for refusing because as a gift it was only permissible, under a treaty that Taiwan did not sign, if Taiwan was a part of China.
Well, shouldn't the pro-green folks be reaching out to those who think of themselves as independents and trying to win them over rather than circling their wagons and preaching to the choir (in Hoklo)?
Of course Runsun believes that! But the issue is what he, I, and several others noted about NOTBLUENOTGREEN -- that people who walk in and announce they are balanced are 99% Blue. In other words, they are not independents and not the people you mean.
I think there is something of human nature in that bluegreen thing. People go into forums where their voice may be unpopular. When presenting their views, they often preceed it with a palliative statement.
If NAACP had a forum (they probably do) and someone who did not support Affirmative Action went in there to preach his case, he might begin with a statement such as "While I am not racist..." to try to set himself in the middle. He may not be racist or he may be. But that line is supposed to soothe readers while giving him some ground to stand on.
I see the same thing in the comments regarding the US election that appear on blogs and under news articles: "I am not an Obama supporter, but gee that thing I heard about McCain really bothers me."
Unfortunately, many people are afraid to say what they really mean as they mean it.
It is really only bothersome when someone is actively trying to make others believe that he or she is something that he or she is not to insidiously affect opinions (as many trolls often do).
Post a Comment