02.10.06
Taiwan’s Tony Blair
Here’s a thought for all those people who are interested in both UK and Taiwan politics (I know there are lots of you really …): Is Ma Ying-jeou Taiwan’s Tony Blair?
Here’s the evidence:
- He inherited an old-fashioned party which had forgotten how to win elections.
- He has a charisma and ‘youthful energy’ which is completely at odds with previous leaders.
- Without any substansive changes he has single-handedly changed the perception of the party from “yesterday’s party” to “tomorrow’s party”.
- He embodies the phrase “a triumph of style over substance”.
- His enthusiasm for links to the big power across the water (which the country has long historical links to) make many of the electorate nervous.
But here’s the thing that got me thinking, from a news report today about Ma:
Stating that the goal of the KMT’s cross-strait policy is to achieve peace and prosperity for Taiwan, Ma stressed that he will advocate a “third path” for Taiwan - maintaining the status quo while boosting bilateral exchanges and mutual understanding across the strait - apart from the options of independence or unification.
This would set off alarm bells for anyone who’s ever listened to Tony Blair’s obsession with his ‘third way’. What is the ‘third way’? Who knows - but it sounds damn good as an excuse for doing what you want while sounding moderate. This article tries to nail it (about half way down):
Now, trying to define what that [the third way] means is very hard. Some wags have observed that the best definition of the Third Way is whatever Mr. Blair actually does. So if you want a directly elected mayor for London, if you want to stop teenage pregnancies, if you want to continue privatizing the railways, then obviously you must be Third Way. That is very obvious, isn’t it?
So what does this mean? Not a lot really. Except that I find Ma Ying-jeou’s obsession in getting his face on as many posters as possible in Taipei and appearing in every photo-opportunity going annoys me just as much as Tony Blair’s holier-than-thou way of talking.
sun bin said,
February 10, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Tony Blair tranform Labour Party into something between Labour and Tory, to get the middle voters.
MYJ can (only) be Tony Blair if he embrace some of the quasi-DPP stance, and step into CSB’s ‘independence’ backyard, e.g. by nominally abandon the pro-unification theme (even if he could secretly communicate with mainland that he is not).
Only by doiung this can he break the ice of the current political ecology, and push uni-TI into 2nd line.
David said,
February 10, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Sun Bin - as you might guess this wasn’t a particularly serious post … having said that:
One of the major things that Tony Blair did was disassociate himself and his party from the hard-core lefties - the sort of people that most voters wouldn’t trust to run a hippie commune, let alone a country. Similarly I think Ma is trying to appeal to moderate voters by focusing on ‘Status Quo’ as opposed to unification, to distance the KMT from it’s hard-core “take back the mainland” history. Time will tell how successfully. Initially this was primarily marketing/spin (in both cases).
In terms of substance, Blair has ended up in some respects to the right of Margaret Thatcher - due to a general shift in the centre of politics over a few decades. Of course, we’ll have to wait and see on Ma - but he’s certainly talking about a position which would have been waaay too radical and unacceptable for LTH to take - again due to the general shift in Taiwan’s mainstream views.
Just for the record: I have no major problems with either Blair or Ma - reservations certainly, and I disagree with them in some areas. But I do think there are interesting parallels.
STOP_George said,
February 10, 2006 at 4:18 pm
.
.
.
Well, the most obvious inconsistency in your parallel is that the U.S. is not trying to annex Britain…yet.
Just a wee little wrench thrown into that analogy.
Now as for this “Third option”:
Ma completely ignores the fact that China DOES NOT WANT THE “STATUS QUO”. The question the Taiwanese should be asking Ma is how is he going to protect this “status quo” when China is clearly gearing up to completely obliterate this status quo in the not to distant future.
“Mutual understanding” and “bilateral exchanges” ?!!! WTF ?!!! Is Ma in La-la land?! I don’t think he is — he can’t be THAT stupid. But, I think he might think that the Taiwanese electorate is gullible enough.
“Mutual understanding”. LOL!!! I can’t get over that. And here he is telling Chen not to be “political” about accepting Pandas named Tuan-Tuan and Yuan-Yuan.
.
.
.
David said,
February 10, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Stop_George: If you want to make a case for Ma being Taiwan’s Neville Chamberlain, go for it!
“I believe it is Status Quo for our time…Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.”
Jason said,
February 10, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Funny, there was once a visionary politician named Chen Shui-bian who also preached the virtues of a “New Middle Path” in his autobiography “Taiwan’s Son”, mentioning the People’s Prime Minister and America’s then-Felatee-In-Chief several times over the course of the book. So glad that work out well for him.
But Ma? The man’s gonna need to impregnate his wife in a suitably manly fashion after being elected for me to start drawing parallels with Blair (no matter how much his wife resembles Cherie… http://www.people.com.cn/media/200110/12/NewsMedia_134835.jpg).
STOP_George said,
February 10, 2006 at 6:01 pm
.
.
.
David:
Not to be too picky, but I think Ma is more of a “Benedict Arnold” character than “Nevillle Chamberlain”. I believe Ma is fully capable of betraying his people.
.
.
.
MrEd said,
February 11, 2006 at 8:34 am
Who is Blair’s Lien Chan? Mr Smoothy needs to break out from out of the Hon Chairman’s foetid shadow before he’s home sweet I reckon.
The View from Taiwan said,
February 12, 2006 at 10:08 am
+++++++++++++++ [IMG]David at jujuflop argues thatMa Ying-jeou is Taiwan’s Tony Blair: But here’s the thing that got me thinking, from a news report today about Ma: Stating that the goal of the KMT’s cross-strait policy is to achieve peace and prosperity for Taiwan, Ma stressed that he will advocate a
Fang Yu Tang said,
February 15, 2006 at 12:19 am
Stop-George, how is the PRC gearing up to obliterate the status-quo in the not too distant future? The anti-secession bill authorizes force only when efforts at peaceful unification have been completely exhausted and gives no time table. That doesn’t sound like a desire to obliterate the ROC in the not too distant future to me. And the ‘92 consensus (which you may claim never existed) already showed PRC is willing to let PRC/ROC co-exist at least for some time (one china - 2 intrepretations).
James said,
February 15, 2006 at 1:36 am
Fang Yutang, what is the legal basis for a bill created in an authoritarian government applied to a democratic state?
You have to look at what’s going on with the military. You can say anything you want at the diplomatic table, but if you’re building up your military, especially in a way that is not suited for any other purpose than an invasion of Taiwan, you’re being threatening. The point is to use military force, if not for invasion in the near term, for negotiating leverage in the long term.
If I say, Yutang, give me your money, that will probably get one kind of response. If I then put a gun to your head, and then I tell you to give me your money, that will get another kind of response. Does it make a difference if I say, “please, just do it, I don’t want to hurt you”, even when I mean it earnestly?
Anyways, the scary thing is that China doesn’t even need a propaganda machine anymore. Mainlanders abroad all still think the same thing about Taiwan, and I don’t understand why…
wayne said,
February 15, 2006 at 9:32 pm
The main difference between Blair and Ma is that Blair is so goddamn earnest. The way he just puts his heart on his sleeve when he’s talking about landmine victims or forgiving African debt is so (to this American) un-British. Of all the different characters giving justifications for the Iraqi war, he was the only one who actually seemed to believe it. On the other hand, I have yet to see Ma express any sort of value judgement. He’s cool and suave but I can’t recall a time he’s said he thought such-and-such was right or wrong.
LA said,
February 16, 2006 at 11:50 am
Yep, I doubt the dictators in Beijing are seriously thinking about any military moves in the near future. They got too many other issues to deal with. Status quo sounds just fine to them. However, it’s always good to speak quietly but carry a big stick (or bunch of missiles).
It’s wise for Ma to play to the centrist position. Let’s hope he doesn’t flip-flop like that Chen dude.
David said,
February 16, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Wayne - fair point. You’re right about the un-British earnestness of Blair - at times I (and a lot of other Brits i know) find it waaay too much (even on issues where I agree with him completely). Although I think with Blair the ’spin’ came first, and the ’substance’ followed, so give Ma a bit of time. Incidentally, what about Ma’s support for democracy (which i’ve just blogged about)? He seems pretty sincere on that …
LA - I have this horrible feeling that anyone who adopts a centrist position will be seen as a flip-flopper by a large percentage of other (much more extreme) politicians …
LA said,
February 16, 2006 at 12:25 pm
It’s hard to know what is Chen’s position, as he is constantly changing between centrist and Taiwan Independence positions. Now, nobody cares.
If anything, Ma will take a centrist position and then slowly push reunification agenda.