Anti-Separatist Taiwan Parties Changing Tune

HONG KONG - China's last line of defence in Taiwan against the onslaught of separatist forces is in danger of crumbling.

This follows a surprise announcement by the opposition parties in the so-called 'pan-blue' camp, which all along favoured eventual reunification with the mainland, that they would not rule out independence for the island as a future option.

If what they said was more than electioneering aimed at garnering votes for next March's presidential election, then it means Beijing can no longer count on these parties to hold the line against those pushing for independence.

And it will have to recalculate the pros and cons of letting reunification proceed at its own pace - or accelerating it, by force, if need be.

But all may not be lost yet for Beijing.

This is because soon after a spokesman for Mr Lien Chan, who heads the opposition Kuomintang or Nationalist Party and is the 'pan-blue' presidential candidate, announced the U-turn, there were quick assurances that the impact would not be as severe as feared.

However, one thing seems certain. As his campaign manager and spokesman, Mr Wang Jin-pyng, put it, the 'pan-blue' camp would refrain from discussing 'one China' and the '1992 consensus'. It would not rule out independence as a 'possible choice for Taiwan's people'.

The consensus referred to was the one reached in 1992 by China and Taiwan that there is only one China, but each is allowed to define the term 'China' in its own way.

Mr Wang, who is Speaker of the Legislative Yuan, Taiwan's law-making body, admitted the change was necessary in order to garner votes.

In Taiwan's political landscape, the 'pan-blue' camp represents parties which seek to maintain the status quo with a view towards eventual reunification with China, while the 'pan-green' camp encompasses groups that want a formal separation from China.

The pan-blue camp is made up of the KMT, the People's First Party (PFP) led by Mr James Soong, and the much smaller New Party (NP).

The pan-green camp consists of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the more radical Taiwan Independence Party (TIP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU).

The most recent poll in mid-November showed that the pan-blue camp had a slightly larger following than the pan-green one. Among those polled, 43.8 per cent claimed to belong to the pan-blue camp while 41.5 per cent said they were with the pan-green group.

Apart from their differences over the future of Taiwan, they also differ in their sense of identity. Those in the green camp regard themselves solely as Taiwanese, while those in the blue camp consider themselves to be both Taiwanese and Chinese.

The pan-blue camp's turnaround is the second shock it has delivered to China, the first being its about-face in dropping its opposition to the referendum proposed by President Chen Shui-bian.

Though it resisted the referendum move initially, saying it would bring about unnecessary tension across the Taiwan Strait, it caved in for fear of being labelled as China's lackey and for fear of losing votes.

In Beijing's eyes, the latest turnaround is another sign the pan-blue camp is buckling under electoral pressure.

In a sense, it also reflects the negative impact of US President George W. Bush's recent public rebuke of President Chen's move to change Taiwan's status.

Taiwan saw that as the gravest setback it suffered since the US switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing 25 years ago.

While Taiwanese dared not speak out against the US leader for hurting their feelings, they took it out on Beijing, resulting in more support for the pan-green camp

This is entirely consistent with past behaviour - whenever Taiwanese felt that they were insulted or bullied by China, separatism would grow even deeper roots.

The tilt in public mood towards separatism probably forced the pan-blue camp to abandon its long-held position, at least verbally, just to avoid being called a 'traitor'.

But both KMT chairman Lien Chan and PFP chairman James Soong thought it necessary to try, a day later, to water down their new stance.

Mr Lien stressed that the cross-strait issue was a remnant of history that should be best left to history to resolve.

He was well aware that China did not set any time-table for reunification and that it was Mr Chen who was pushing to lay the groundwork for independence by seeking to draft a new Constitution in 2006 for implementation in 2008.

'It would be irresponsible and unfair to force the Taiwanese to make a tough decision in less than a hundred days (before they cast their vote) to decide an issue that could affect our posterity,' he said.

Echoing Mr Lien, Mr Soong said: 'It took more than 50 years for Taiwan to reach today's achievement. For a country the size of China, it would surely take an even longer time. If China becomes more prosperous and democratic, our descendants might find a better way towards political integration.

'So why the great haste now? We are electing the president for 2004, not one for 2040.'