Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
It may be hard to imagine now, but they used to vow to exterminate the "evil communist bandits." They justified keeping in place martial law and the autocratic regime that enriched them on the grounds of fighting communism.
Now, in total disregard for the nation's overall interests and security, they compete to be the first to pay their respects to the "bandits," and take pride in becoming guests of the communist regime. It is truly hard to have any respect for people who exhibit such an ugly, opportunistic side of human nature.
In view of opposition leaders' China fever, the Central Standing Committee of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) on Tuesday passed a resolution on visits to China by political parties. The resolution makes a point of highlighting "three oppositions" and "three musts."
The resolution passed by the DPP fully represents the mainstream popular will and aligns with the stance that the independent sovereignty of Taiwan cannot be changed by external forces. This resolution also gives cautious advice to the opposition leaders, while rejecting the 10-point consensus reached between Soong and President Chen Shui-bian (
Unfortunately, while the DPP has taken a strong stance through the resolution, the Presidential Office has adopted a policy of treating Lien and Soong differently, by criticizing the former but not the latter. It sternly condemned Lien for making the trip to China, but it spoke about Soong in kind words, saying that he is going to China with the 10-point consensus reached between him and Chen. That consensus is in writing and signed by the two. From this perspective, Soong can of course represent the position outlined in the consensus.
To attack Lien but not Soong may be a strategy deployed by the Presidential Office to divide the pan-blue opposition. However, on issues that relate to national security and fundamental interests, it is most important to be principled. Since the visits to China by opposition leaders are harmful to Taiwan's interests, the government should treat everyone equally in accordance with the law and make no distinction between the opposition leaders.
Everyone who deserves moral condemnation should be condemned, with no exceptions made. KMT Vice Chairman Chiang Ping-kun (
But Soong will get immunity because he holds a piece of paper that contains the 10-point consensus with Chen -- and therefore he's free to be wined and dined by China's "communist bandits." How can the government ease the confusion over this different treatment of Lien and Soong?
The reasons why the two sides of the Taiwan Strait cannot negotiate are that politically, China has the ambition to engulf Taiwan, while economically it has adopted a policy of luring Taiwanese capital, industries, talent and technologies, in an attempt to pull out the roots of industrial development established in Taiwan over the past decades.
The autocratic nature of the Chinese regime is at odds with Taiwan's free democracy. Moreover, China is rapidly improving its military prowess, while remaining adamant about using force against Taiwan. In other words, China is the only enemy to Taiwan's sovereignty. And in terms of economic development, China is Taiwan's biggest competitor.
Faced with such an enemy and competitor, the core of Taiwan's cross-strait policy should be self-protection, to ensure that the roots of its economic development are not pulled away, political democracy and freedoms are not obstructed, and the national sovereignty is not violated.
If these are the goals, then Taiwan should obviously keep a safe distance from China. The visits of the opposition leaders to China, whether authorized by the government or not, and regardless of any 10-point consensus Chen may have signed, are inappropriate.
China's unification campaign has becoming increasingly flexible in its strategy. On the one hand it enacted a harsh Anti-Secession Law to threaten Taiwan. On the other hand, it warms up to Lien and Soong, thereby sandwiching the government with pressure both within and outside Taiwan. If the government continues to treat Lien and Soong differently, it will fall into Beijing's death trap.
It's hard not to question Soong's and Lien's personal agendas in making these trips. Lien has so far been defeated in two presidential elections. He is also about to step down as KMT chairman. This trip to China seems to have become the one last major gamble of Lien's career -- a longshot attempt at a political comeback.
Soong also suffered two major defeats. The political party he founded, the PFP, has experienced major ups and downs. Therefore, he may hope to open up a new career path for himself by aligning with Chen and shuttling between the two sides of the Strait.
Precisely because politicians such as Lien and Soong are washed up has-beens, when China issued invitations to them in the name of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and party Secretary-general Hu Jintao (
Lien and Soong claim to be making pilgrimages to China for magnanimous purposes, such as pushing for cross-strait peace, striking a deal by which China will agree not use force against Taiwan as long as Taiwan does not declare independence, and negotiating the withdrawal of China's missiles.
These are nothing but lies. The only purpose being served is an attempt to advance their own exhausted political careers. These trips will not serve Taiwanese people's interests. The government should reiterate its stance and caution Lien and Soong to assume full responsibility for the outcome of their trips.
They must not be allowed to sacrifice the interests of the 23 million people of Taiwan on the altar of their own outsized egos.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS