Taiwan: The DPP and Its Dilemmas

Taiwan: The DPP and Its Dilemmas
Article
Summary
Taiwan’s opposition Democratic Progressive Party is struggling to win centrist voters, who want to avoid friction with mainland China, without alienating their anti-mainland base.
Related Topics
Related Media and Tools
 

Taiwan’s opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) confronts a dilemma as it approaches January’s combined legislative and presidential elections. On the one hand, it rests on a firm support base of about forty percent of Taiwan’s voters. These voters usually support independence for Taiwan from mainland China—or at least are opposed to reunification. They are often identified as “ethnic Taiwanese” or Minnan dialect speakers, not recently descended from mainland-origin migrants who usually speak the Mandarin dialect.

On the other hand, the DPP will normally need support from “centrist voters” to get a majority in two-candidate elections. Many voters in Taiwan’s “middle” do not support reunification with China, but also want to avoid hostility and friction with the mainland and want to promote economic progress ahead of independence.

The dilemma for the DPP is how to win “centrist voters” (zhongjian xuanmin) while not alienating the party’s anti-mainland base. DPP’s previous successful presidential candidate, Chen Shui-bian, now imprisoned on corruption charges, won his first election with 39.7 percent of the vote when the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) party split and two candidates divided its base. There is some talk of such a split recurring this time, as former Taiwan governor Soong Chu-yu yet again considers running for president. But Soong appears to be damaged goods in the Taiwan political marketplace and is unlikely to be able to mount a serious challenge.

So the DPP needs to find a way to appease the party’s so-called “deep green and light green” base, while drawing in new “centrist” or “light blue” voters to achieve a majority. To that end, the DPP announced on August 23 the National Security Chapter of its Ten Year Policy Outlook, setting forth the principles and policies to guide Taiwan’s international relations and dealings with mainland China.

The language of the report clearly attempts to side step inflammatory rhetoric that might turn off centrist voters. It calls for Taiwan to “construct a framework for peaceful and stable interaction between Taiwan and China.” This contrasts with the belligerent tone struck through most of the years of Chen Shui-bian’s presidency.

One key point in the report is its implicit rejection of the so-called “1992 consensus” employed by incumbent President Ma Ying-jeou to create ambiguity on the critical issue of how to handle China’s insistence on the principle of “one China.” So long as both sides of the Taiwan Strait advocate “one China,” under the “92 consensus” each side can take its own perspective on what it means (yizhong, gezi biaoshu). This is the critical compromise that enabled practical improvements in cross-strait economic and other relations over the past three years.

The new DPP chapter is silent on “one China,” but calls for a new Taiwan “democratic consensus” to be established as a basis for dealing with the mainland and other foreign relationships. By not addressing how the DPP intends to finesse the “one China” principle, the DPP document quietly threatens the reduction in tensions the Ma government has achieved.

Chinese officials meeting with Americans this year signaled a willingness to be flexible toward any new efforts by the DPP to find its own way to address “one China,” and did not demand adherence to the “92 consensus.” But they were insistent that the “one China principle” needs to be addressed in some fashion to sustain the current trade, tourism, and other arrangements.

Now that the DPP has failed to meet China’s test for seriousness of intentions, Beijing faces its own dilemma. If it chooses to speak up forcefully and threateningly against the DPP in the run-up to the election, experience indicates (and Chinese leaders know) it will provoke a negative reaction among Taiwan’s voters and could drive them to support the DPP. If it speaks too softly in opposition to the DPP position, centrist voters may conclude there is no real cost to replacing the Ma government with one led by the DPP’s Ts’ai Ing-wen.

Officials from the mainland’s Taiwan Affairs Office so far are straddling these two sides of the dilemma and it appears to be awkward for them. It undoubtedly is even more uncomfortable for them because of the climate of nationalism pervading China’s new media.

Ironically, this leads the Chinese privately to express hope for intervention by the Obama administration to tilt the political playing field in favor of the Ma Ying-jeou’s government and against Ts’ai’s DPP. Back in the days of Chen Shui-bian, China counted on the Bush administration to rein him in. But after Ma was elected, Beijing increasingly indicated it wanted the United States to back off. Once again the tide has turned and Beijing is looking to Washington for help to manage what it ordinarily insists are its internal affairs with Taiwan.

This in turn will create a dilemma for Washington: how to appear impartial in Taiwan’s domestic elections and yet convey its preference for a continuation of Ma Ying-jeou’s management of cross-strait relations. Look for Obama administration officials to state that they are impartial about the voting and will welcome whatever is the result of the democratic elections in Taiwan. But they are likely also to state that the United States hopes for a continuation of the reduction in tensions and would not welcome provocations from either side of the strait.
 

End of document

About the Asia Program

The Carnegie Asia Program in Beijing and Washington provides clear and precise analysis to policy makers on the complex economic, security, and political developments in the Asia-Pacific region.

 

Comments (4)

 
 
  • XXOL
    It's doubtful if the US government prefers a continuation of Ma administration though. Where did you get that impression from? Just curious.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • Douglas H. Paal
    US Government spokes people have repeatedly expressed approval of the reduction in cross-strait tensions undertaken since Ma’s administration commenced. Given the growth of American interests that cannot be properly managed without cooperation with China, from non-proliferation, to global finance, to regional security, a return to cross-strait tensions would be contrary to American strategic interests. Moreover, the recent visit of DPP candidate Ts’ai Ing-wen to Washington left senior officials concerned that she and her close advisers lack the sophistication, understanding and willingness to address the issues in cross-strait relations that could fundamentally alter the current calm situation.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • XXOL
    Thanks for your clarification. However, Tsai today was granted permission to enter Pentagon, meeting US officials from the Department of Defense. The privilege of entering Pentagon was the first time in over a decade. Does this imply that US government may be internally divided when it comes to the preferred candidate in the upcoming Taiwanese Presidential election?
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
  • Frankie Fook-lun Leung
    the interesting thing is that both the KMR and DPP have to actively seek the approval of the US Government and to appeal to the Taiwanese emigrants who can either vote in Taiwan or have an influence over Taiwanese politics. If you ask the average American, he or she would not care very much about what's going on in that island.
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
Source http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/09/07/taiwan-dpp-and-its-dilemmas/51gb

More from The Global Think Tank

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address in the field below to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站,进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。