After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan's (
Their sycophancy has opened the eyes of the Taiwanese people to the ugliness of Lien and Soong's characters, but also to the feudal style of China's government in acquiring vassals. None of this is compatible with modern democracy.
Now that Lien and Soong have returned, it is time to assess the results of their betrayal of Taiwan's interests. First and foremost, as chairmen of opposition parties, their ability to sell out Taiwan's sovereignty is limited.
China might seem to have won some slight advantage at the level of political rhetoric, using Lien and Soong as part of their "united front" strategy to give credibility to the "one China" fantasy. But even if Lien and Soong proclaim China's greatness like loyal retainers, they cannot frighten Taiwan.
The cross-strait question has two aspects.
The first is the political aspect, which at its heart is about sovereignty.
The second is the actual situation and what can be done about it.
On the political front, Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Lien knew what he was in for, and tossed the whole idea of the Republic of China into the Taiwan Strait before he even arrived. Soong wanted to be tough, but in the end -- under pressure from various fronts -- he also swallowed his words.
Hu was tough, and Lien and Soong came out looking weak. But then, those who capitulate cannot dictate terms, and must simply wait on those to whom they have capitulated.
When Hu insisted that the basis of the cross-strait issue would be based on the "1992 consensus," neither Lien nor Soong dared to say anything. Lien's "news release" spoke of the "1992 consensus" and Soong's statement mentioned the "two sides of the strait, one China" idea, but these are just footnotes to Hu's statement.
As the issue of sovereignty has already been decided by Hu, any point in Lien's five-point communique or Soong's six-point agreement, which disagrees with Hu's statement, will necessarily be overruled.
As for the practical aspects of the situation, only the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) administration, which is invested with public power, can achieve anything.
Hu is clearly delighted that Lien and Soong have tried to sell out Taiwan. But apart from selling themselves, what else can Lien and Soong do?
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
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