The delegation led by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Vice Chairman Chiang Pin-kun (江丙坤) chose April Fools Day to bring their 10-point consensus with China back to Taiwan. But Taiwanese don't find the joke particularly funny. Looked at from the perspective of the national good, the visits by high-level KMT members -- the timing, the role they chose to play and the results -- are all inappropriate.
With regard to the timing, the KMT chose to make the visit immediately following the passage of the "Anti-Secession" Law. At a time when local and international opinion was directed against this absurd and barbaric move by China, the KMT's actions served to help China maintain the facade that its intentions are peaceful and that the law is beneficial to cross-strait relations.
Whether intentionally or not, the KMT has helped China out of the disadvantageous position it got itself into by passing the Anti-Secession Law.
The KMT, in making a visit to China and signing an agreement with a foreign power, has shown a serious confusion about who they are. Whether from the perspective of international law or diplomatic protocol, opposition parties rarely, if ever, negotiate an agreement with the government of a foreign country.
An opposition party may assist the government in promoting foreign policy, but that they should be the signatories is very bizarre.
If any political party were entitled to sign an agreement with foreign powers and then return home to demand it be implemented, then what purpose would the government serve?
As for the results, the 10-point consensus brought back by the KMT is a sugar-coated poison pill that places Taiwan in a disadvantageous negotiating position. The 10 points all seem to be of a practical nature and avoid sensitive political issues.
If they were implemented, they may well be beneficial in reducing tensions across the Taiwan Strait. But the problem is what it avoids, for it fails to address the one issue that China most stubbornly insists upon.
In future, when the government of Taiwan seeks negotiations on the above issues, China will once again put forward the "one China" principle and the 1992 consensus as prerequisites for adopting any proposals.
To put it another way, China presents a rosy future to the KMT, but remains unchanged in its dealings with the government.
It's like a salesperson promoting a product to a child by telling them of the special benefits and preferential price they will receive, but when the time comes for the parents to actually pay for the product, the salesperson presents a different persona, pointing out the stringent terms and conditions that must be abided by, and the harsh terms of payment.
Appealing to the opposition by offering benefits so that they will put pressure on the government, and then demanding compliance with stringent conditions when negotiating with the government, is a strategy that China has often used.
From the negotiations that took place between the KMT and the Chinese government we can clearly see that China is trying to sow dissention and exacerbate existing conflicts within Taiwan in an effort to undermine morale and unity.
It seems a great pity that the party that claims to have made the most comprehensive study and to have the best understanding of China cannot even see through this crudest of unificationist ploys.
I don't know if this has anything to do with April Fools day. Is the KMT simply fooling itself, or is it playing the people of Taiwan for fools?
Luo Chih-cheng is executive director of the Institute for National Policy Research.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
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