While the pan-blue camp is still engaging in its final struggle against the results of the presidential election, Singapore's Straits Times has reported that Li Jiaquan (
Washington and Beijing play the most decisive roles in the cross-strait relationship. They both have accepted that Chen was the legitimate winner of the presidential election. Yet the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) are still reluctant to concede defeat.
The KMT-PFP alliance has persistently questioned the legitimacy of Chen's victory and mobilized their supporters to deny the legitimacy of Chen's reelection. Ironically, it is the legitimacy of the pan-blues' protests that have been most doubted. Even the international media has conceded that they have yet to put forward concrete evidence to support their vote-rigging claims.
Since the two parties initiated their series of lawsuits, they have provided no evidence, relying instead on paid advertisements calling upon their supporters to come up with some evidence. While more gullible members of the public may believe the old adage that "where's there's smoke, there's fire," the nation's judges are not impressed.
The Taiwan High Court yesterday held its first hearing of the KMT-PFP lawsuit requesting the election be invalidated. Presiding Judge Cheng Ya-ping (
In Beijing, Zhongnanhai's Taiwan strategies have always been rigid, disregarding changes in Taiwan's political situation. Li told the Straits Times that, under the "one China" principle, China is prepared to accept the existence of and interact with the Republic of China. He also said that Zhongnanhai regretted the inflexibility of its past cross-strait policies.
Even if Li's comments do not represent the Chinese government's stance, it is interesting that he was willing to admit that China's rigid policy on cross-strait relations has been a major mistake. Unfortunately for the people of Taiwan, neither the KMT and the PFP appear to be aware of or willing to face changes in public opinion, much less admit that they made mistakes in the past.
It is hard to believe that the two parties' ability to adapt to their environment is inferior to that of an advisor to the Chinese leadership. They repeatedly claim to represent the people of Taiwan and to be supported by half of the electorate. How could they lose the presidential election with such support?
The nation is eagerly awaiting the results of the recount. The people really want to know if the Central Election Commission made mistakes when counting the votes. How else could the shameless and shiftless KMT and PFP lose the election by such a narrow margin?
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS