The pan-blue camp has made efforts to explain its cross-strait policy over the past few days, but the ambiguities and contradictions in their position have not eased the public's suspicions. In the past such ambiguity has been used to maintain stability and the status quo, which appealed to moderate voters. However, considering the changing international scene and changing views of moderate voters, the question is: Has this strategy of ambiguity become outdated?
A quick survey of the top five pan-blue figures' public statements reveals at least five different views on cross-strait issues. On Wednesday, at a press conference held to give Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
With advanced degrees in political science, Lien of course knows that there is a fundamental problem with his view. Internationally -- just as the People's Republic of China is the name of the government representing China -- the ROC is supposed to be the name of a government. The only question is which country.
This was of course disappointing, since only a day earlier, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (
Neither Lien nor Soong explained how their latest statements on cross-strait policy fit in with Soong's prior statement that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are both under a "one China roof," and Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (
To worsen the confusion, Lien then said that if he is elected, Taiwan will immediately start a dialogue with China about direct links. How can that be done when China insists that such dialogues can only be conducted if Taiwan accepts the "one China" principle?
The pan-blues must realize that moderate voters -- the group to which they are obviously trying to appeal -- are not permanently stagnant. Their views are evolving with the emergence of new values and greater demands for rights and freedoms in Taiwanese society. A case in point is the referendum right, which only a few years ago was still just a proposal by radical independence advocates, but which has now become commonly accepted.
Finally, it is also imperative to realize that, in the past, when China was not nearly the economic and military power it is today, Taiwan might have been able to prosper in the international community with its ambiguous status. But as China gains more power against Taiwan, Taiwan has less room to breathe. Can we continue to delude ourselves that the status quo can be maintained by such an ambiguous cross-strait policy?
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