Whether Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's (
It should be analyzed on various points.
In regard to cross-strait relations, the visits by Lien and People First Party Chairman James Soong (
They have eased the tension between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.
In fact, the Chinese Communist Party has actively pushed for the visits of the opposition leaders in order to ease cross-strait tension and soothe the global resentment that has emerged against the "Anti-Secession" Law.
But this cannot build a foundation for cross-strait peace.
Regarding Taiwan's domestic affairs, the visits by Lien and Soong have once again stirred up conflict between pro-unification and pro-independence camp ideologies.
After the legislative elections in December, the government tried to create an atmosphere of reconciliation, while the new Cabinet promoted reconciliation and coexistence.
There were also high expectations that social conflict in Taiwan could be reduced. But people were stunned by the violence at CKS International Airport on Tuesday last week.
As an outsider, the first question that came to my mind was how Taiwanese people could talk so much about reconciliation with the other side of the Strait when they continue to fight so severely among themselves.
The violence at the airport told us another very painful fact: Domestic integration of Taiwan is yet to be completed.
In light of the extremely different stances that exist on this nation's development, adjustments are necessary and consensus and reconciliation should be sought.
A society can only look outwards when its internal problems are resolved.
Under such circumstances, I believe that politicians who truly love Taiwan should put aside their ideological interests and focus instead on their community.
They should also do their best to make more decisions that benefit ethnic reconciliation and social harmony.
Real cross-strait talks can only take place someday when a consensus is reached within Taiwan.
Wang Dan was a student leader during the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations in Beijing.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS