Taiwanese Voters Send Message to Taipei — and Washington
On Saturday, Taiwanese voters, in four closely watched by-elections for seats in the national legislature, expressed growing dissatisfaction with the ruling Kuomintang (KMT).
The opposition Democratic Progressive Party retained one seat it previously held and won in two Kuomintang strongholds. The ruling party avoided a sweep by narrowly holding onto a safe “deep blue” seat. The DPP, often known as the green party, increased its percentages in all four districts. “This is the KMT’s fourth election setback, and this deals a fresh blow to President Ma Ying-jeou’s popularity and the party’s morale,” said Hsu Yung-ming of Soochow University.
“It tells President Ma, who doubles as KMT chairman, that he should stop trying to woo voters from the opposition Pan-green camp,” said Lin Huo-wang, a presidential advisor, referring to the stinging defeat. “A political party will not be able to hold its core support if it drifts further away from its ideals.”
And what are those ideals? In 2008, the Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party, won landslide victories, first in the January legislative elections and then in the March presidential contest. President Ma interpreted those wins as a mandate to more closely integrate Taiwan with China, and as a part of that effort he abandoned the notion, maintained by his two predecessors, that Taiwan is a nation separate from the People’s Republic. He has also signed various deals with Beijing to more closely integrate the Taiwanese and Chinese economies.
China’s friends in America have consistently maintained that the Taiwanese voted for the KMT and Ma because they wanted to reconcile with Beijing. Take the always-interesting George Gilder, for example. The American futurologist, in his recent Wall Street Journal essay, argues that “some Taiwanese politicians” may dream of independence, but the rest of the island has placed its bet on the Chinese giant next door. In this regard he glowingly points to Taiwan’s “world-beating entrepreneurs” establishing links with China, two-thirds of its companies making investments there, and three-quarters of a million of its people residing on the Chinese side of the Strait. And from these facts he somehow concludes that Washington should stop selling Taiwan weapons.
The “o” will sell them out just as quickly as he has anyone else who doesn’t have something to offer for his gain. If there is a need for character or conviction, Barry is long gone.He cant make hard decisions, he is a weak sister.
The KMT apparently believes that after some sort of “reconciliation”, they’ll end up ruling a “united China”. They seem to have forgotten how they ended up on Formosa to begin with.
They should remember the limerick about the young lady who rode on the tiger.
Considering the PRC’s financial and industrial condition, it’s more likely that after a “reunification” (by politics or simply by force) the old men in Beijing will loot Taiwan, destroy its industries, and use the gains to prop up their own economy- for another little while. Buying a temporary respite from the economic disaster they are facing, that the New Economic Zone along the coast is also helping to delay- but nothing can hold it off forever.
What is certain, whatever happens, is that the present administration in the White house, and the entrenched “internationalists” (i.e., socialists) at State will do absolutely nothing to impede Beijing’s plans, however nebulous or impractical they may be. Because they are based on True Socialist Theory, which is always Right and Good.
Never mind that, even with everything going for them, they tend to fail, spectacularly and often brutally. The “philosophy” remains pristine- and after all, like they say about greeting cards, “it’s the thought that counts”.
clear ether
eon
When I was in school a couple years ago I had a Taiwanese roommate. She maintained that the events of Tiananmen Square had firmly turned the minds of her generation from ever wanting to reunify with China. I have never forgotten her vehemence on that subject or her anger at what she saw as Chinese interference on every aspect of Taiwanese international relations (I especially remember getting an earful during the Olympics). The idea that the Taiwanese want to reunite with the Chinese may be a pleasant and convenient one for those in the U.S. who want to abandon their commitment to the island, but that does not mean it’s accurate.
As long as the Taiwanese want us there,we stay and back them.I for one do not approve of China’s human rights record.Every 5 or 10 years they feed the world some line about how its improving and so on to placate the next worlds generation and have been doing it continuously.Tiananmen Square will stay permenantly in my memory and we will continue to remind China of this.
One of the lowest points in recent American foriegn policy came when Richard Nixon (tricky dicky) sold Taiwan down the river in favor of normalized relations with China.
His refutation of the “Two Chinas” policy declared to the world that the US could not be counted on when profits for American businesses were stacked up against opposition to tyranny; dollars win every time! I was only a teen-ager at the time, but I still remember the sick feeling of shame and embarrassment I felt for my country. I knew it was betrayal; Taiwan knew it was betrayal and the rest of the world saw that betrayal for the weakness due to corruption that it was!
Taiwan should consider very carefully before they trust the US to protect them from Red China’s aggressive and imperialistic policies. America did not protect Nepal, Tibet, or the Uigars. We will not protect the Mongols, should the opportunity arise and we certainly will not jeopardize American business profits to keep an old, dusty promise to Taiwan! Taiwan is there for China to snap up any time she wants. Taiwan knows it, we know it, and worst of all, China knows it!
One only has to see how the Chinese have treated the Tibetians to get a picture of the mindset of the power brokers in China, Stay free Taiwan.
My suggestion to Taipei: Work with Tokyo and Seoul to have a common foreign policy and defense policy, like what David Lloyd George had in mind for the British Empire.
It would make a good amalgam, alongside the successful British Commonwealth countries, plus
the amalgam that could be formed in Europe and Georgia, which allows countries more room than what Brussels is willing to accord them.
All these amalgams would be under the rubric of the Alliance of Democratices.
I suspect the central-fugal forces in China are stronger than people think. Don’t assume the country could not divide further. If the Chinese had self determination the country would fly apart. Southern China has had a history of self rule.
8, Ruebacca, if I understand you correctly, the borders of mainland China will change, and the result will be a smaller country.
Just like Siberia leaving Russia, and Russia being smaller.
Am I correct?
David W. Lincoln
Are you serious?
Ruebacca,
China has been a unified state since Qin Dynasty 221 BC.
I don’t know of any period where Southern China has self-rule unless you are referring to the Southern Song (1127-1279 AD).
The Southern Song is illustrative of the situation today. The Song had been driven south by the Mongols and though defeated they still maintained that they were the legitimate ruler of all of China.
Could you be speaking of the Taiping Tianguo (1850-1864)? Even then it only controlled Jianxi, Zhejiang and Anhui provinces.
In fact history of Taiwan is:
-Aborigines
-Towards the 14th century Chinese and Taiwanese pirates establish some bases. No trace of Chinese government
-Sixteenth century the Portuguese discover the island, the Dutch defeat the Portuguese/Spanish and import chinese man power. These were the first chinese permanent settkements.
-Late sixteenth, the Manchus topple the Ming dinstay and conquer China. Ming loyalists retreat to Taiwan and expel the Dutch.
-Towards 1620 tHE Manchus conquer Taiwan. This was the fist time Taiwna was united with China.
-In 1890 Japan conquers Taiwan.
-In 1945 the UN handles temporarily the island to China. Taiwanese insist about the temporarily. The taiwanese protested and were mowed won with machine guns.
-In 1949 THE KMT fled TO Taiwan.
So Taiwn has been part of China for less than three centuries and it was a China ruled by a foreign dinasty (the Manchus). You could argue that they are ethnic chinese and speak chinese. Just like Americans in 1776: they were ethnic British, spoke English but their hearts were no longer British.
10 – David W. Booth.
Yes. Where is it that borders remain the same in perpetuity?
All I was asking is will the current borders of mainland China change, so that the new size of mainland China is smaller than what it is today.
Besides, what benefit has Siberia experienced by being saddled with Moscow? It looks like Moscow has benefited much more than Siberia in the to and fro between both entities.
David W. Booth
Or are you referring to Taipei working together with Tokyo and Seoul?
The United Nations, like the European Union, the IMF and the World Bank are making a tough job needlessly more difficult. So, they should be jettisoned. Therefore, because nature hates a vacuum, new entities have to be brought in.
In “Paris 1919″ by Margaret MacMillan, who is a great grand daughter of David Lloyd George, who was the Prime Minister of Great Britain, when the First World War ended, we see an idea floated by Sir Robert Borden, who was the Canadian Prime Minister
at the time. It was about what to do, just in case the League of Nations didn’t work out.
When combined with what DLG wanted the British Empire to change into – namely home rule for all of the British Empire, but with imperial policies dealing with foreign affairs, and defense (which
would be less of a financial drain on London) – what else do you suggest?
For, are you prepared to say that the United Nations benefits everyone? As best as I can make it out to be, the countries which
are most in need of improvement are the one’s who want to drag other countries down to their level. Am I wrong?
RickGreenvilleSC, yes, which means we need to bring more pressure on the O man so that he does what is right.
eon, fortunately, unification won’t happen. Because 90% of Taiwan’s population won’t let it.
colagirl, thanks for sharing that story, which everyone, especially policymakers in Washington, needs to hear.
Brian, good for you.
We need to remind China, and we need to remind ourselves.
bubblehead, thanks. It was a betrayal, a lowpoint in the annals of American diplomacy. We need to prevent future ones.
Bill Perron, yes. How China treats its own people today is the best indication of how it will treat other nations in the future.
David W. Lincoln, excellent suggestion.
Nations in the region coming together to help Taiwan would solve one critical problem Beijing poses.
JFM, thanks. It helps to have the chronology displayed.
These days, most Taiwanese do not see themselves as “Chinese” in any meaningful sense of the term.
David W. Lincoln, the concept of democracies working with each other is better than the idea of the U.N. any day of the week–in theory and in practice.
The free world should never forget that in all of recorded history communists have NEVER kept their word. They serve ONLY their interests with lies and deception. Makes one wonder why the free world deals with these bastards – the citizens of Taiwan know Chinese history and do not wish to become part of the 50 to 70 million body count under communism.
People may not be aware that Mr. Chang represents the viewpoint of the DPP, the Pan-Green alliance, which currently has only 26 out of 113 seats in the Legislative Yuan. My wife is from Taipei, goes back once a year, thinks of herself as Chinese and supports Ma. Half of her family are mainlanders, the other half were from the original group of Chinese that came over from Fujian province several centuries ago. There was a lot of intermingling in the post-war era. The fact is to the extent you can generalize about what the Taiwanese “want,” what they want to be left alone, to live in peace and continue with their economic development. Sure, they would go along with independence if they knew it was in the realm of possibility. The American revolution was won with guns. Absent a complete internal breakdown of PRC, Taiwan is in no position to wage military action and win. The three “no’s” put forward by the KMT: “no unification, no independence and no use of force” are what command majority support on the island. To extent that swing voters think that either KMT or DPP is not serious about either the first or second “no,” they will switch to the other party.
Markus, I suggest you take a look at the “Black Book of Communism”
Given that not all of the papers can be looked at, it is an imperfect extrapolation that we wind up with as to how heavy a price
has been paid by China and Russia, courtesy of the Hammer & Sickle.
Harry Wu has company, and he stands with Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky, Vladimir Bukovsky, Elena Bonner, and many more in showing
those who have the open mindedness to see, as to what is the best of humankind.
David, the dispute between China and Taiwan has very little to do with “communism” and a lot to do with national and ethnic identity. And also with class. The mainlanders economically and politically dominated the island for many decades, back when it was “Free China.”
Lloyd Evans, right you are about the trustworthiness of communists. Thanks.
Markus, I represent no political party in any country.
Markus, are you saying that the barbarism of the Middle Kingdom Complex equally infects mainland China and Taiwan?
There is a difference between the taiwanese and “mainlanders” as you call them, just as in Russia there was a difference between those who backed the Decembrists, and those who were Slavophiles.
Hong Kong is the model for the fate of democracy
under the rule of China.
So, how is it going in Hong Kong?
Teacher, students, and publishers – all of you need http://bit.ly/bAuycP plagiarism detection service. Contact us today and get the peace of mind you deserve and need!