Were it not so serious, the current shenanigans of Taiwan's political landscape might be laughed off as a farce. We have the spectacle of the country's opposition trying to act as its government in negotiating Taiwan's future with China's communist leadership. In doing so, it is circumventing the democratic process of an elected presidency which returned President Chen Shui-bian (
Which, in effect, means that no single political party has an entitlement to govern indefinitely. The entitlement comes from the popular choice of the people. If this choice were to appear irregular or rigged, there are appeal channels to contest this. And once these are exhausted, the finality of the decision is accepted and respected by all sides of the political spectrum. The country then gets behind the government of the day. Unfortunately, this is not happening in Taiwan at the present time.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's (
Beijing got enough mileage out of it though. The passage of its "Anti-Secession" Law had dented its image, costing it the lifting of the EU arms embargo. But Lien's visit and the ensuing bonhomie seemingly made Taiwan's elected government ineffective.
It's clear that Chen is worried by the turn of events, with Beijing trying to manipulate Taiwan's politics to its advantage. Having failed to dissuade the opposition leaders from their ill-advised China trips, Chen is now trying to co-opt this new development as part of Taiwan's political process. For instance, he said Lien had not "overstepped the boundary" during his talks with communist leaders.
In any case, according to Chen, "No matter which Taiwanese party or individuals China chooses to talk to, it ultimately has to approach the leader elected by the Taiwanese people and the government of Taiwan." He seems keen to use People First Party Chairman James Soong (
He wants to establish his government's relevance and efficacy in cross-strait affairs, and to avoid letting the opposition call the shots. The opposition, in any case, is not talking of handing over Taiwan to China in the near future. What they seem to be doing is to accept the principle of "one China," with Taiwan's eventual unification relegated to a longer time frame. In other words: to freeze the status quo over the medium or long term.
As Lien said in Beijing, "The two sides of the Strait must maintain the status quo." But this shouldn't be "static" or "passive," with both sides trying to "seek things in common from our differences and to accumulate goodwill." His vague formulation basically means that unification will happen eventually as China and Taiwan widen their common ground.
The question is: Will this be acceptable to the people of Taiwan? Judging by Chen's nervous and shifting response to the opposition leaders' China visits, he seems to think that they might win political mileage at home by appearing to be make some headway with Beijing. He is, therefore, trying not to appear completely negative about the visits, and is equally keen to start a dialogue by even co-opting the opposition into the process.
Chen is, of course, right to point out that ultimately Beijing has to "approach the leader elected by the Taiwanese people and the government of Taiwan" for any worthwhile progress in cross-strait relations to occur.
The point, therefore, is: How serious is China about entertaining the opposition's idea of eventual unification in a time frame of, say, 50 years?
Having waited for over 50 years to take over Taiwan, China's communist leadership seems rather in a hurry to finish the job. Indeed, their internal political compulsions of creating a legitimacy of sorts as champions of China's nationalism do not brook much delay. The Anti-Secession Law is an example of this.
What that means is that Beijing is playing politics with Taiwan's future, with the witting or unwitting cooperation of the country's opposition forces. They are trying to create the impression that only the opposition, with its newfound capacity to deal with China, can deliver and win popular appeal.
As a result of Lien's visit, Beijing is willing to accommodate the economic interests of special constituencies like farmers. In this way, it will seek to erode some of the ruling party's political support base. It would hope that this will increasingly make Chen's government ineffective and directionless, and forced to be reactive.
It would appear that Chen is already acting reactively by purportedly sending a message through Soong for Hu. He has also separately called for the setting up of a "cross-strait military and security mutual trust mechanism as soon as possible." Chen has also invited Hu to visit Taiwan.
The problem is that Beijing isn't listening because it seems to have put Chen on the defensive by playing politics with Taiwan. And he is unlikely to win this political game of competitive China wooing, because Beijing distrusts him. They find the opposition in Taiwan more responsive. He may, therefore, be well-advised to maintain and reinforce his political line of promoting Taiwan's own identity. It may be painful in the short run, but in the medium and long term it will better serve Taiwan's interests.
In any case, the opposition might find, when they sit down to discuss Taiwan's future, that Beijing is unlikely to wait much longer for the island's incorporation into China.
Sushil Seth is a freelance writer based in Sydney.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS