On Friday, this newspaper ran two articles which together must make us question exactly where the new government is going on cross-strait relations.
The first was Cao Chang-ching's (
Cao thought that Chen had made two enormous blunders, first by invoking a Richard Nixon analogy -- that it take a hardliner to really work out a compromise -- when Nixon's room for maneuver then and Chen's now are completely different, and, more importantly, Chen's repeated promises that he would not enshrine the "two-states" model in the constitution, wouldn't change the nation's name and wouldn't hold a plebiscite on independence. Cao rightly characterized this as Chen retreating before Beijing had even applied pressure. Hardly a smart way of dealing with people whose concept of negotiation more nearly resembles intimidation.
But if Cao's reminding us of errors already made wasn't bad enough, in the very same edition of the newspaper was Mainland Affairs Council Chairperson Tsai Ying-wen (
And what exactly is to be gained thereby? China hasn't shown the slightest goodwill toward Taiwan for half a century. Why should anyone be so naive as to think that putting on ice a policy which is overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Taiwan to curry favor with the thugs who rule in Beijing -- who would destroy Taiwan in an instant if they had the military wherewithal, which they don't -- is good policy? Who elected this government? Was it the "state-to-state" enthusiasts of Taiwan or the dictators in Beijing and their creatures in the US State Department?
Tsai's words were meant as reassurance to KMT lawmakers worried by DPP Chairman Lin Yi Hsiung's (
Chen's contribution to this was Delphic to say the least. The government, said a statement from Chen's office, cannot go against the voice of the populous. Is that pro-two states or pro-Tsai? It should of course be the first, but we fear in the current atmosphere of cravenness it probably means the latter. And the advocates of "one China," that pathetic failure of a policy which has left Taiwan on its knees, seem to be riding as high in the new government as they did in the old.
A week ago in this very space we argued that while Chen's China policy was looking a little disappointing, we recognized that he had a difficult job living down his earlier Taiwan independence hotheadedness to be able to seem a plausible leader, especially in Washington.
But this has gone too far. It is all right to want to appear conciliatory. But there comes a time when appeasement has to stop, when expediency has to give way to metal. When is Chen going to draw his line in the sand, and into what small corner will he have backed himself -- and Taiwan -- before he does?
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers