The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government's cross-strait policy has deteriorated into total chaos lately. On the one hand, when Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) visited the Northern, Central, Southern and Eastern Taiwan societies, the Society of Taiwan University Professors and the Friends of Lee Teng-hui (
In early February, when the US dispatched a specially appointed National Security Council envoy and a high-level State Department official to Beijing, they brought with them a letter from US President George W. Bush to the Chinese leadership. The special envoy also directly stated the US' clear opposition to China's position on Taiwan.
On the other hand, the government has made frequent shows of goodwill toward China. Not only did cross-strait negotiations result in charter flights in both directions across the Taiwan Strait during the Lunar New Year, but at a meeting of China-based Taiwanese businesspeople recently, President Chen Shui-bian (
The government opposes China's anti-secession legislation, but it is using the charter flights and cargo transportation as a bargaining chip in negotiations over full-blown cross-strait links. This kind of policy thinking is rife with contradictions. Both anti-secession legislation -- China's overt attempt at possession of Taiwan -- and the three direct links -- China's attempt at theft -- are detrimental to the nation. How could it be possible to reject the one while embracing the other?
During the National People's Political Consultative Conference in March, China will try to provide a lawful basis for its ambition to annex Taiwan, which can be used as a tool in its legal war on Taiwan. Although this move on China's part is aimed at Taiwan, it is a naked manifestation of its broader dictatorial thinking and actions. This move has gotten the attention of the international community. In fact, although Taiwan is the main target of China's expanded arms purchases, once China has annexed Taiwan, it will be able to establish a powerful naval presence and develop from being a regional, continental hegemon into becoming a global hegemon, able to project power by land and sea.
Even more worthy of note, following the collapse of the Soviet and East European socialist system, China's is the only remaining one-party, socialist dictatorship among the world's big powers. This huge nation, with its 1.3 billion-strong population, adopted a policy of reform and opening up in 1978. It began working hard to attract foreign capital and businesses in an attempt to use cheap labor and land to become a factory to the world. This deregulation policy has now been around for more than 20 years, and it has indeed improved China's economic strength.
China's increasing economic power, however, has not brought with it political reform. China's ruling elite maintains socialism and the dictatorship of the Communist Party. The seeds of democracy have still not been planted in China, and human rights and freedom remain suppressed. It will be a terrible disaster for the civilized world when a country with such stubborn ideological and nationalist attitudes breaks through Taiwan's democratic defenses and brings its political, economic and military influence to the world.
China's military strength is such that it is sure to become an even greater danger to world peace and democracy than fundamentalist religious factions. In fact, China's vigorous rise cannot be ignored, and the international community has to keep a close eye on how it will be affected. In fact, other countries are retaining a high level of alertness even as they engage in direct relations with China. The EU, under the direction of France and Germany, has revealed its intention of ending its arms embargo on China, a development that has sparked US concern. Washington thinks that the EU sale of weapons to China could compromise US security. The Bush administration has publicly declared its opposition to any such sales and sent the new secretary of state, Condoleeza Rice, to try to prevent the EU from taking such action before it is too late.
Russia and Japan, who have had a very uneasy relationship for the last 200 years, are putting aside their differences in the face of the growing threat to East Asia posed by China's ambitions to be a superpower. The two countries are strengthening their military and economic ties.
If Taiwan is left to deal with China on its own, it is going to feel pretty lonely and helpless, facing the largest nation on earth. It may feel like throwing in the towel.
On the other hand, as far as international politics is concerned, Taiwan's strategic geopolitical position, as well as its democratic status, puts it firmly on the same side of the ideological divide as the majority of the world's population -- supporting freedom and opposing dictatorship. If Taiwan is to leverage these advantages, it should be able to secure recognition and support from more nations in its opposition to China's anti-secession law.
We cannot understand why the government opposes China's actions while at the same time is doing its utmost to weaken Taiwan's position in the name of more open and peaceful relations, by offering good-will gestures such as the "three links" and allowing Taiwan's industry to invest in China.
Taiwan has been the main contributor to China's rise. Back in the 1970s, the government allowed military veterans to visit relatives in China out of humanitarian concerns. This was followed by tourists and businesspeople using all kinds of illegal channels to get into China. China's successful opening up of Shenzhen, Zhuhai and Shantou in Guangdong Province and Xiamen in Fujian Province as special economic zones owes much to the Taiwan experience and help from Taiwanese businesspeople.
After the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, many nations denounced China's tyrannical government. Some even imposed economic sanctions or embargos on arms sales. When China found itself internationally isolated, many people in Taiwan took the opportunity to intensify investment in China, giving it breathing space and allowing it to maintain economic growth. The tragedy is that despite all the help Taiwanese business interests have given to China's economic development, China has never for a moment relented in its ambition to annex Taiwan. As such, Taiwan's continued investment in China amounts to laying out a red carpet for annexation by China.
Since last year's legislative elections, conciliation has been the watchword in domestic politics. That both the government and opposition are trying to put an end to confrontation, and give some respite to the people, deserves our applause. Conciliation should be directed inward to issues of public policy and the people's livelihood, so that these can be dealt with without resorting to boycotts and the suppression of dissent. This will benefit the people and is the proper way to achieve conciliation. Unexpectedly, the idea of conciliation has been twisted in such a way that it no longer refers to party politics, but rather to a reconciliation with China. So we are now faced with the peculiar situation in which the political parties are as irreconcilable as ever over new legislation, the confirmation of Control Yuan members and the arms procurement budget -- even to the extent that it has proved impossible for members of the opposition to join the Cabinet.
Instead, both the government and the opposition have resolved their differences on China policy, so that opposition leaders have expressed willingness to serve as special envoys to China and the DPP has approved direct flights for the Lunar New Year and direct cargo shipments across the Strait.
The government and opposition are competing in who can suck up more to Beijing -- to such an extent that they have successfully misled the international community as to the nature of China's ambitions.
As a result, Taiwan has lost the moral high ground in its attempts to reject annexation by China.
Although the actions of both the government and opposition might be motivated by the desire to relieve cross-strait tensions, these actions may well lead the country to disaster.
Translated by Perry Svennson, Paul Cooper and Ian Bartholomew
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
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
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS