American Freedom Fighter visits imprisoned Taiwanese democracy leader

Missionary pays secret visit to Chen Shui-bian in Taipei jail today, gives him his memoirs of KMT's "White Terror '' days

(Got this story in my e-mail. Media embargoed till Monday evening Taiwan time. But I'm not "media" and I'm not in Taiwan. So here it is...)

webposted by anonymous


Former US missionary in Taiwan Milo Thornberry,  75, who was a central figure in helping human rights leader Peng Ming-min (彭明敏) escape from Taiwan during the years of the White Terror, paid a private personal visit to former Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian today, inside the jail where Chen now whiles away his days.

During the private visit, which was intentionally kept out of the
media limelight, and was just a personal private meeting between to
old friends, Dr. Thornberry gave a copy of his memoir about his Taiwan days to President Chen, who is serving a 15 year prison sentence in a Taipei jail.

Thornberry went to Taiwan as a missionary of the Methodist Church at the end of 1965 and over the next few years — as recounted in his
recently published book Fireproof Moth — secretly distributed
money to the families of political prisoners.

He and his wife also worked to inform the outside world of the
torture, the executions and the repression practiced under the Martial
Law era regime of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石).

In particular, he collaborated with Peng and two former students —
Hsieh Tsung-min (謝聰敏) and Wei Ting-chao (魏廷朝) — who were both arrested, “horribly tortured,” tried in a secret court and served long prison terms.

According to Thornberry, who is now retired but still gives sermons
and speeches as a Methodist pastor, the “shadows” from the period of
martial law had a bearing on the diverging views of Taiwan’s future.

After democratization in Taiwan, none of the officials responsible for
the White Terror were brought to account, Thornberry told the Taipei
Times recently.

“Since the election of the [President] Ma [Ying-jeou (馬英九)]
administration, not much has been heard from it about the period of
White Terror,” he added.

“Does the KMT [Kuomingtang or Chinese Nationalist Party] simply want to forget that period, believing that younger generations who didn’t experience White Terror will not care about it?” he asked.

However, he said, until this past is acknowledged openly and dealt
with justly, “I wonder if Taiwan can live into the future without
denial.”

“The shadows of the conspiracy of silence also fall on the US
government,” he says.

“Some in today’s administration seem little more concerned about the
hopes and aspirations of the Taiwanese people than they were during
the period of White Terror,” he says.

“Although they knew the reality, they deemed it in the U.S. national
interest to disregard the Taiwanese people in favor of Chiang
Kai-shek,” Thornberry says.

“Now, I fear that the Taiwanese people’s interests are disregarded
because of U.S. interests in China, not to mention the complication of
our indebtedness to China. The issues now and then are different, but
the readiness to disregard the will of the Taiwanese people is the
same,” he says.

Thornberry's visit to Chen in prison was arranged by Chen's friends,
and was a purely private, personal visit between two old friends.
Thornberry had met Chen two times when he serving as president of Taiwan in 2003 and again in 2008.

Taking Sides Over Taiwanor China Still Singing the Same Old Song

Adapted from CBC Newsworld story
following election of Chen Shui-bian and the DPP

April, 2000

By Stephen A. Nelson

TAIPEI - China (read "The People's Republic of China") is obsessed with Taiwan. It wants Taiwan so badly, it can taste it. Hong Kong and Macao were merely appetizers. Taiwan is the main course.

China even has its version of the "fee-fo-fi-fum" song favoured by that unfriendly giant who had a taste for Englishmen.

China's chant goes like this:
"Taiwan always has been and always will be a part of China. Nothing can change that. Not even democratic elections in Taiwan.
"It is the desire of Chinese people everywhere for Taiwan to be reunited with China."

This is called the "One China Principle."

Lately, it seems I can't open a newspaper, or turn on the TV without hearing some Chinese official singing that same old song.

It's the same song the Chinese people have been hearing for the last 50 years from the Nationalist government in Taiwan (read "The Republic of China.) Of course, they always thought that China and Taiwan would be re-united under Taiwan's Nationalist regime, not Beijing's Communist regime.

Here in Greater China, both sides have their own interpretation of the One China tune. As long as both sides were playing the same tune, they could at least dance together, even if they needed the United States to chaperone.

But last year, Taiwan's President Lee Tung-hui started singing a slightly different tune. While the mainland was still singing Some Day We'll Be Together, Lee was singing "It's going to take some time, next time." But to the Chinese, this sounded like The Twelfth of Never.

This made the Chinese and Americans a bit nervous.

And now the people of Taiwan have chosen a new leader: Chen Shui-bian, who doesn't particularly like this dance or this kind of music.

This has made China's leaders, and people on both sides, angry and confused. The U.S. is very nervous. They all liked the old song. So the Chinese bandleaders keep telling their musicians "Play louder! Play louder!" and the American chaperones keep telling everyone "Keep dancing! Keep dancing!"

This, no doubt, has a lot of people asking themselves "What are we doing here?"

Before you can even try to answer that question, you have to ask two more questions: "What do you mean by 'We'? " and "Where is 'Here'?"

"Here" is Taiwan, still known to some people as Formosa, or even "Nationalist China."The official name of the country is "The Republic of China"or "ROC" for short. But most countries, including Canada, refuse to recognize Taiwan. So in sporting events such as the Olympics, or in trade organizations such as APEC, Taiwan must appear under the name "Chinese Taipei"; which is kind of like Canada being called "American Ottawa."

Confused? You're not alone.

So let me try to put things in perspective: Geographically, Taiwan is to the Chinese mainland what Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands are to the rest of Canada.

About 160km off the south-east coast of China, the main leaf-shaped island is about 394km long and about 144km across at its widest point. Taiwan also controls a number of smaller islands in the region.

There are more than 22 million people living here, most of them on the main island.

The "we" is China and Taiwan.

What you have here in Taiwan is a people who are united to the mainland by culture and language, but divided by history and politics.

In this part of the world, Chinese officials and Chinese journalists (on both sides of the Taiwan Strait) love to tell the One China story, with special emphasis on the part that says Taiwan is a province of China. They say that Chinese people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are "brothers and sisters" who long to live together as one happy family.

Well, it is true that most people in Taiwan trace their ancestry to China. And in many ways — culture, religion, even language — the Taiwanese seem even more Chinese than the Chinese.

But most of these families arrived during the reign of the emperors, more than 100 years ago. Many of these people, including Taiwan's new president, think of themselves first and foremost as "Taiwanese."Chinese if necessary, but not necessarily Chinese.

To many Taiwanese, people on the mainland are "distant relatives."At best they can be friends, but they will never be close family.

True, many of the more recent arrivals from China do think of themselves as Chinese. And they do have close family ties on the mainland. But to many young people here, the whole question of "Is Taiwan a part of China?" is so "Yesterday."

But what is the rest of the world to think? Is Taiwan part of China?

It is true that maps of China have long included Taiwan. Then again, many maps of the United States include parts of Canada, too.

And even if Taiwan is considered part of China, it hasn't always been under Chinese rule.

In 1544, when the Portuguese discovered this sceptred isle, they called it "Ilha Formosa" which means "Beautiful Island" in Portuguese. But the Portuguese couldn't hold on to Formosa and concentrated their colonial efforts elsewhere instead.

In the 1600s, Taiwan was colonized by both the Dutch and the Spanish, who fought for control of the island until the Dutch finally kicked out the Spanish.

Most of the people living in Taiwan at the time were not Chinese, but aboriginals. They had more in common with the Polynesians of the South Pacific than they did with the mainland Chinese.

During the late 1600s, China's warring Ming and Manchu families arrived in Taiwan. They kicked out the Dutch and fought each other for control of the island and control of China. The Manchus finally won and established their dynasty in China, making Taiwan a county of Fujian province.

This triggered many successive waves of immigration from China. Most of the immigrants were from Fujian province, directly across the strait from Taiwan. To this day, the "Taiwanese" language is virtually identical to the Fujian dialect.

In 1895, Japan took Taiwan from China and held onto it until the end of the Second World War, when it was “handed back to China.”

By this time, of course, the emperors were gone in China.

That's because, in 1911, the Kuomintang (KMT or Nationalist Party), led by Sun Yat-sen, overthrew the Ching dynasty. The KMT subsequently established the first Republic of China.

With the help of strongman Chiang Kai-shek, Sun tried to unite a China that was deeply divided by powerful warlords. They never quite succeeded.

After Sun's death, Chiang's efforts to unite China were interrupted by the Japanese invasion and the Second World War.

In recent years, many people have been critical of Chiang Kai-shek. But during the war, the Generalissimo was regarded as a hero for fighting the Japanese and rescuing China's national treasures from the invading hordes.

At the end of the Second World War, “giving Taiwan to China” was seen as the Allies' way of rewarding one of the great leaders of the "free world."

Before long, the KMT was fighting again, this time with its former allies, the Communist forces of Mao Tse-tung. The Nationalist forces lost and — along with about two million people — fled to Taiwan to plan their re-conquest of the mainland. Fifty years later, some of them were still planning.

In the meantime, the KMT established the Republic of China on Taiwan, while the Communists established the People's Republic of China on the mainland.

For most of the last 50 years, both have claimed to be the sole voice and legitimate government of all China. For the first two decades, most of the international community sided with the Nationalists. "Free China" (under martial law, of course) survived as a virtual colony of the United States.

In 1971, things started to fall apart for the Kuomintang, who were still clinging to the "One China" fiction.

The People's Republic of China had applied for admission to the United Nations. Many countries were willing to accommodate Taipei and Beijing with a "Two Chinas" policy. But the ROC staked everything on its position: that it was the sole legitimate voice for all of China. The KMT gambled and lost.

First they lost the Chinese seat at the United Nations — including its seat as a permanent member of the Security Council. Then, one by one, Taiwan's major allies, including Canada, severed their diplomatic ties with Taiwan and switched their allegiance to Beijing. Taiwan was ejected from countless international bodies and became persona non grata in the international community.

In 1979, the United States withdrew both its official recognition and its troops from Taiwan. The U.S. didn't completely abandon Taiwan, promising to help Taiwan defend itself from outside threats — namely China.

Since then, China has threatened war many times. But its major attacks have been on the diplomatic battlefield, where it has tried — and succeeded — to isolate Taiwan.

But, while most of the world was looking the other way, Taiwan was changing.

In 1975, Chiang Kai-shek died and was succeeded by his son, Chiang Ching-kou. To those independent-minded Taiwanese, this was starting to look like another dynasty. The Taiwanese didn't like that much, and said so openly — a bold step when the country was under martial law.

Thus, the democracy movement was born in Taiwan. Eventually, the movement was given a name, the Democratic Progressive Party. As it turned out, "Emperor" Chiang Ching-kuo was not unsympathetic and allowed the newborn party to live.

Most people are aware of the economic miracle that has taken place in Taiwan in the last 20 years. The technological revolution has turned a developing country into an economic powerhouse. Certainly the KMT and out-going president Lee Tung-hui can take some credit for that.

But the economic miracle almost pales in comparison to the political miracle. Twenty years ago, Taiwan was a one-party state under martial law. The government was still talking about re-taking the mainland. It was forbidden to even discuss the idea of Taiwan independence.

These days, no-one is talking about re-taking the mainland. Taiwan has just completed its second presidential election. The people of Taiwan have democratically put an end to one-party rule. And they've chosen a leader: Chen Shui-bian, who has spoken openly about Taiwan independence.

This has made the Chinese government very angry. It's made the U.S. very nervous. It's made a lot of Taiwanese people angry and nervous.

But for a lot of people at this dance, it's also very exciting. No more slow waltzes and foxtrots. If they ever play the "One China" tune again, it will be to a rock-and-roll beat. And, whatever the tune, it seems rock and roll is here to stay.

For now, anyway.

Taiwan's Return to Dark Days? You be the Judge

By Stephen A Nelson
Asia Times Online
January 17, 2009

TORONTO, Canada - In a world rife with deadly terrorist strikes in India, anti-government riots in Thailand and civil wars in the Middle East, it may be hard for the rest of the world (even in Asia) to see Taiwan's struggle for democracy as anything more than a tempest in a China teapot. And certainly a worldwide economic crisis has eclipsed concerns for Taiwan's future as a separate state with de facto independence from China.

For many "China experts", last year's return to power of the old Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang or KMT) in Taiwan was seen as a return to peace, order and good government by Taiwan's natural governing party. The restoration of the ancient regime was largely hailed as a good thing in Beijing, Washington and the international community.

To them, KMT President Ma Ying-jeou has "the right stuff". And the new trade and transportation agreements with China are viewed as "one small step" for Taiwan but "a giant leap" for regional peace and prosperity - despite consternation from Japan.

Even the KMT government's raft of arrests, detentions and imprisonments of senior Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials - especially former president Chen Shui-bian - is seen as a campaign designed to root out corruption and bring evil-doers to justice.

But other Taiwanese and critics say that Ma and his inner circle of senior KMT officials - most of whom have close ties to China - have made too many concessions and have already surrendered Taiwan's sovereignty to Beijing.

The critics say that Chen's imprisonment - and the arrests of many other DPP officials in the past months - bears all the hallmarks of a political witch-hunt. To them, it looks like a KMT campaign meant to silence political opposition to its aggressive pro-China policy - and to settle old scores with Chen Shui-bian and the DPP.

According to the highly regarded Taiwan Communique, these concerns "arise from popular fear that Ma's government, which has allowed a reactionary KMT to set policy, is ready to turn the clock back to the martial law-era if it will advance its goals and please its negotiating partners in Beijing. In addition, there is popular discomfort over the egregious lack of accountability and transparency in the secretive party-to-party negotiations that Ma and Beijing are pursuing in contradiction of Taiwan's own laws and constitution."

This has resulted in an ongoing war of words in the international press between the KMT government and those concerned with human rights and democracy in Taiwan.

In November, a coalition of human-rights, judicial reform and social movement organizations - including the China Rights Network and Taiwanese Human Rights Association of Canada - accused the KMT of "pulling Taiwan's human rights standards down to the level of the People's Republic of China (PRC)”. In an open letter published in several newspapers, the coalition cited suppression of protests during the visits to Taiwan of Chinese officials. They also complained about the apparent persecution of Chen Shui-bian, his family, and other DPP officials.

Also in November, similar criticism came from a group of 20 leading American, Canadian and Australian experts on China and Taiwan - including Nat Bellocchi, Washington's former de facto ambassador to Taipei. The group said the recent acts by the KMT administration resembled "the unfair and unjust procedures practiced during the dark days of martial law".

In particular, the experts said that the persecution is obvious because "only DPP officials have been detained and given inhumane treatment such as handcuffing and lengthy questioning, while obvious cases of corruption by members of the KMT - including in the Legislative Yuan - are left untouched by the prosecutors or at best are stalled in the judicial process".

In their joint statement, the scholars and journalists complained that the KMT was using the judiciary - the legal system of prosecutors, investigators, judges and courts - to persecute political opponents.

"We also believe that the procedures followed by the prosecutor's offices are severely flawed: while one or two of the accused have been formally charged, the majority is being held incommunicado without being charged. This is a severe contravention of the writ of habeas corpus and a basic violation of due process, justice and the rule of law," the experts said.

And, they protested, "the prosecutor's offices evidently leak detrimental information to the press. This kind of 'trial by press' is a violation of the basic standards of judicial procedures. It also gives the distinct impression that the Kuomintang authorities are using the judicial system to get even with members of the former DPP government."

This prompted a counter offensive from the government, which has accused the petitioners of getting their facts wrong.

In two open letters - published in English and Chinese - Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng insisted that Taiwan is a country where rule of law pervades. She said that the arrests and detentions of Chen Shui-bian and others are legal and necessary to prevent them from colluding with co-conspirators, destroying evidence or fleeing the country.

In the first letter, Wang wrote, "We in the Ministry of Justice ... want to reassure those who are concerned about Taiwan, including those who wrote and signed the open letter, that there will be absolutely no erosion of justice in Taiwan, no matter who the accused is."

In the second letter, Wang insisted that the judiciary is acting independently from any political influence and stressed that President Ma Ying-jeou is not interfering with the legal process.

"Therefore, the allegation of prosecutorial bias against the DPP is entirely baseless," she said. "All of our prosecutors, without exception, are under the supervision of the prosecutor-general. There can be no doubt that our public prosecutors endeavor to prosecute crimes and protect the innocent while respecting due process."

But Taiwan watchers remain skeptical. Among them is Dean Karakelas, a Canadian journalist and political scientist who lived in Taiwan for eight years.

"Twice now, respected international scholars have signed an open letter pointing out bias in the actions of the ROC judiciary, and twice now the Justice Minister has responded defending the legality of its actions," said Karakelas.

"Let's be clear: it is not the legality that is being contested, but the morality. It is easy for a party that controls all five branches of government to make all its actions legal," he said. "But if the current ROC government wants foreign journalists to stop reporting on its unethical and undemocratic behavior, it is going to have to do more than point out how eminently legal these immoral persecutions are: it is going to have to behave responsibly, transparently and with respect for the principles of democracy."

And many familiar with Taiwan's realpolitik say that Wang Ching-feng's counter-offensive misses the point, because President Ma Ying-jeou is not pulling the strings - but his old guard KMT comrades are.

"I am very concerned about the judicial happenings," said Bruce Jacobs, director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. "I'm not convinced this is being orchestrated by Ma. More likely, if it is being orchestrated, it is coming from [KMT chairman] Wu Poh-hsiung and [honorary KMT] chairman Lien Chan."

Others would add the name of another conservative force in the KMT: former governor of Taiwan province James Soong.

But if that's true, how would the KMT control the judiciary anyway?

"Taiwan has never had true transitional justice," said Jerome Keating, author of several books, including Taiwan: The Struggles of a Democracy. The KMT has always controlled the Legislative Yuan and through that the appointments to the Control Yuan [the body governing the judiciary]."

Keating said that during the Chen years, KMT legislators stifled the Control Yuan "allowing no appointments and thus paralyzing that body".

As a result, the vast majority of judges in Taiwan - especially senior judges - came up through the old political vetting process during the martial law era and is profoundly pro-KMT. In short, they were appointed by (and beholden to) the KMT.

Michael Turton, host of the highly regarded website The View From Taiwan, concurs. "Judges become judges by passing a fiendishly difficult exam which they devote all their time to, and they lack experience of the world and social and political maturity," he said.

If that's true, should the trials of Chen Shui-bian and others come as a surprise? And is Taiwan really returning to its dark days of martial law?

"Yes, I am surprised, but not totally," said Jacobs. "I would not phrase it [that way], as Taiwan has clearly not returned to the bad authoritarian past."

But, Jacobs noted: "The two institutions that have been slow to democratize are the judiciary (including the prosecutors) and the media."

Karakelas also disagrees with the idea that Taiwan is slipping back into a dark night of martial law. "Although the events taking place under Ma's watch are undeniably undemocratic, he is inadvertently doing the DPP a huge favor," he said.

What's more, Karakelas said, the anti-democratic moves of the KMT may spark the rebirth of a pro-Taiwan, pro-democracy DPP.

"By taking the steps he is taking, Ma's KMT is forcing the DPP back into its old role as rebellious, persecuted protest party," said Karakelas. "He's turning them back into guerrillas. [The DPP] was originally formed as a force to oppose the KMT's one-party rule ... and it lost its path when it took the reins of power. Ma is pushing the DPP back to a position in which it is comfortable, and where it operates best."

Karakelas is among those who point out that many in Taiwan voted for Ma Ying-jeou because Ma was supposed to represent a break with the KMT's past. Yet three prominent members of that martial-law era regime - former vice president Lien Chan, former governor James Soong and current KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung are part of Ma Ying-jeou's inner circle.

So what does this say about Ma's leadership and who's really running the country?

Karakelas and others say this demonstrates that either a) Ma is too weak to resist the temptation to wield his executive power in undemocratic ways, or b) that the KMT is still inherently incapable of operating in a democratic, multi-party system.

"Like it or not, Ma is engaged in a zero-sum game: rapprochement with China must inevitably be paid for by sacrificing some of the freedoms that Taiwanese people have fought hard for," said Karakelas.

Karakelas said that the real problem is not "how will Ma balance the loss of civil liberties on one side and closer relations with China on the other side"? The real problem is "at what point will Ma lose control of his balancing act"?

In fact, Karakelas said, "Ma isn't in control, even now, of the balancing act, and that what we're really accusing him of is failing to rein in the more conservative forces within the KMT that are running wild - both in terms of political persecutions at home and abroad making rogue deals with China."

Jacobs also seems think that Ma is not really in control - and that the KMT old guard is.

In an editorial in the Taipei Times last fall, Jacobs noted that "the KMT still remains unreformed, but party reform has become even more urgent".

In the editorial, Jacobs said, "The KMT center, and not the Democratic Progressive Party, has become the most important opposition to the Ma government." Jacobs cites open rebellion from KMT legislators, as well as harsh criticism of Ma appearing in pro-KMT newspapers - as well as on the KMT's own news website, KNN.

Jacobs went on to say that the only solution was for Ma to move out the old conservative men in the KMT and take the reins himself.

Jacobs concluded the editorial by saying, "Clearly, gaining control of the KMT is much more than a domestic matter. And it is vital to the maintenance of Taiwan's democratic health. President Ma, please act soon!"

In the meantime, former president Chen Shui-bian is back in jail until his trial. There he will stand accused by special prosecutors who have vowed to get results. And he will be tried by a KMT appointed and approved judge - Taipei District Court judge Tsai Shou-shun - that critics say has already made up his mind that Chen is guilty.

Or, as the English-language Taiwan News put it: "Besides being reminded of former KMT secretary general Hsu Shui-teh's famous admission that 'the courts belong to the KMT', the script being followed should be familiar to anyone who observed politics in Taiwan during the KMT's decades of authoritarian or one-party dominant rule. Namely, if the KMT loses based on the existing game rules, it ceases to follow the rules or rewrites the rule book."
On his website, Turton wrote that this turn of events makes it clear that the trial of Chen Shui-bian is a political persecution. "Even the dullest spectator can understand a kangaroo court," he says.

"It's ironic - a fair trial with competent judges and prosecutors would have almost certainly resulted in a conviction - but now that the KMT has removed judges it doesn't like and played havoc with the prosecution and the trial process, it has tainted any conviction obtained," Turton said.

So what then is the future of Taiwan's struggle for democracy?

For years, under Lee Tung-hui, and later Chen Shui-bian, Taiwan's government enjoyed a positive reflection in the international press, with the possible exception of Xinhua. "The nation's commitment to human rights, democracy, civil society and transparency were hailed as groundbreaking," said Karakelas.

"The current government of Ma Ying-jeou should not be surprised that this positive reputation is being soiled. It has been scrambling to silence the reporters and commentators that report on its undemocratic behavior. It should be aware that Western journalists are not as easily intimidated as those in Taiwan," he said.

But what about in Taiwan? What will be the fate of the democratic movement?

"It's been said that the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common,” said Li Sai Fung, a former radio broadcaster in Taipei. “Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views - which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering.”

For the KMT old guard, said Li, "Chen-Shui Bian and the DPP is one of the facts that needs altering."

Stephen A Nelson is a Canadian freelance journalist now based in Toronto but with one foot still in Taiwan. For eight years he worked as a journalist in Taiwan, including two years at the Taipei Times newspaper. He was also a broadcaster at Radio Taiwan International, where he produced Strait Talk, a weekly program about Taiwan and its place in the world. He welcomes professional enquiries.

The Struggle for Democracy: The 2004 Presidential Election

At a temple in Tainan County, a banner welcomes native son Chen Shui-bian home after his successful bid for re-election in 2004.

Adapted from CBC News Viewpoint
March 22, 2004

It's all over but the crying. The presidential election in Taiwan is finished, the votes have been counted, and – unless Taiwan's high court rules otherwise – Chen Shui-bian, of the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), will be sworn in for a second term in May.

In winning a second term, Chen and his vice-president, Annette Lu, have defeated the pro-unification forces of Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, or KMT) leader Lien Chan and his running mate, James Soong.

Even before the failed assassination attempt on the lives of Chen and Lu, this closely fought battle had grabbed the world's attention because of one key issue: Taiwan's relationship with China. Now both the Taiwanese and the outside world are asking, "How will Chen's re-election affect that relationship?"

But to honestly answer that question, you first have to ask, "What was the relationship like before the election?"

The standard line is that Taiwan and China split in 1949 after a civil war in China, when Chiang Kai-shek's KMT forces lost to Mao Zedong's Communist forces. Mao formed the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland, while Taiwan and it's surrounding islands became the last bastion of the KMT's Republic of China (ROC). Today, Beijing insists that the two entities on either side of the Taiwan Strait are part of "one China" that must be reunified – by force if necessary.

The reality is a little more complicated.

But it's enough to say that Taiwan has not always been part of China, and it has never been part of the PRC. For many years the KMT government seemed to have a "mutual understanding" with Beijing that kept the two sides at peace and allowed Taiwan to act as a sovereign state: an agreement in principle that there was one China, of which both Taiwan and the mainland were a part. In the KMT's mythology, this is what has become known as “the 1992 Consensus."

Conventional wisdom has it that the relationship has cooled considerably since Chen the sovereigntist took office in the year 2000. But conventional wisdom can be like an old wives' tale: just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

It's true that Taiwan and China have not had any of the unofficial talks that took place during the KMT's reign – the kind of "family meetings" that allowed China and Taiwan to live in peace even if they couldn't agree on living together. And it's also true that Chen has alarmed, frustrated and angered Beijing by declaring that Taiwan already is a sovereign nation and therefore has no need for a "declaration of independence."

But it must be noted that the cooling trend began long before Chen and the DPP took office in 2000. The relationship reached a nadir in 1999 – almost a year before Chen took office – when former KMT president Lee Tung-hui stated that Taiwan and China enjoyed a "special state-to-state relationship."

Beijing leaders responded to that pronouncement with bile and venom. They condemned Lee as a "separatist," suspended all discussions with Taipei, and again raised the spectre of a war to “reunify” Taiwan with the motherland. And they have done the same again with Chen Shui-bian.

Shortly after becoming president, Chen did offer olive branches to Beijing; but all his overtures were either flatly refused or ignored. Beijing and the pro-unification forces in Taiwan blame Chen for not recognizing the "one China" principle. Chen and the pro-sovereignty forces blame Beijing for refusing to treat Taiwan as an equal partner in any discussions.

In the past four years, there has been a lot of finger-wagging and showing of teeth from Beijing, but not as much sabre-rattling as in the past. And despite his provocative talk of sovereignty, Chen has shown himself to be a skilled political realist who knows how to push China's buttons without going too far.

So, while things have not improved under Chen's tenure, they're not really any worse.

Both sides hoped this election would be a watershed. Chen wanted a mandate for changes that would solidify Taiwan's identity as a separate and sovereign nation. Beijing on other hand, wanted rid of Chen and supported KMT Leader Lien Chan so that both sides could get back to talking about one China.

In this election, neither side got what it really wanted. Chen got re-elected by pushing the sovereignty issue, but with no real mandate for the kind of radical changes that independence would imply. And China must face the fact that the Taiwanese people have again chosen Chen and wish to be "maitres chez nous."

So the question now becomes, "What will the two sides do differently – what must they do differently – this time?"

The answer to the first part of that question is that nobody really knows.

The optimistic view, the hopeful view, is that Chen's election to a second term changes everything. Another man, backed by powerful business interests, might have made a deal with China that would have traded Taiwan's sovereignty for peace and prosperity. But this one will not, so China will realize it must now get over its distaste for separatists and deal with Chen.

Chen, having barely won an election he was supposed to lose, will reach out confidently and peacefully to China. He will make new overtures that Beijing – acting in enlightened self-interest – will respond to, so that growing economic ties between the two countries can proceed and both sides can continue to prosper in peace.

The skeptical view, some would say the realistic view, is that the election in Taiwan changes nothing. Beijing's policy toward Taiwan comes from decisions made inside the world of Chinese politics. There are both hawks and doves in Beijing, but the wind beneath their wings is the same: unification with Taiwan. There is not that much a president of Taiwan – especially an independence-minded president like Chen – can do about that.

Proponents of both views agree on the answer to the second part of the question: Chen now has the responsibility of making it easier for the "doves" in China to succeed. In other words, maybe he can't make Beijing change its mind and he can't make the leaders talk – but he can and must make them willing and able to talk.

That means toning down the independence rhetoric that makes the hawks want to pounce. It also means giving the doves some face, so that it doesn't look like they're giving up on the "one China" principle if they meet with Chen. Then and only then can any progress be made on key issues such as trade between the two countries.

Can any president do this and still make the Taiwanese feel that they are "maitres chez nous"?

If anybody can, Chen can. In the last four years, and again in this election campaign, he has proven himself to be a skilled political realist as well as a charismatic leader. But more importantly Chen – as the assassination attempt showed – is a survivor. He can take a bullet for the team and still come out alive.

Stephen A. Nelson is a Canadian freelance writer and broadcaster now living in Toronto.

BACKGROUND:
In 2000, two bitter rivals from the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomingtang or KMT) — Lien Chan and James Soong – had fought each other to become the KMT's presidential candidate. When Soong failed to get what he considered to be his by right, he split from the KMT – taking his supporters with him. The KMT, in turn, kicked him out of the party and said the same would happen for any of his supporters.

The very public and nasty split in the party resulted in the vote being split.

The “outcast” James Soong placed a close second in the election and nearly won.

The “chosen one” Lien Chan placed a very distant third.

The winner of the election was the dark horse: Chen Shui-bian, a former democracy-rights lawyer from the independence-minded Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

Vowing never to let the separatist Chen win again, Lien Chan and James Soong buried the hatchet long enough to run a joint campaign against Chen in 2004. After an extremely acrimonious election campaign, Chen won again – this time by a razor thin margin in the popular vote.

The victory came just one day after an apparent assassination attempt on the lives of Chen and his running mate, Vice President Annette Lu. Chen and Lu were both wounded by bullets fired at them while they were travelling in an open motorcade.

On election night, Lien, Soong and their supporters rallied in streets of Taipei. They charged that the election had been stolen, the voting had been rigged, and that Chen had faked his own assassination attempt.

Lien and Soong vowed never to accept the results. They led a month-long series of protests designed to produce a "people power" coup. At the same time, they challenged the election results in the courts.

When this story was written – just days after the election, their case was still before the courts. Of course, the courts threw out the challenges, saying there was no evidence to support their accusations.

That didn't stop Lien, Soong and their supporters from orchestrating a campaign to depose Chien Shui-bian, calling on him to "step down." It's a campaign that lasted until the 2008 presidential election campaign won by the KMT's Ma Ying-jeou. It's a campaign Ma won with the help and support of Lien and Soong.

But now that Chen has actually "stepped down" at the end of his term, the accusation that he staged an assassination attempt on his own life continues to be an albatross that the KMT hangs around his neck.