Prior to celebrating the fourth anniversary of its founding on Aug. 6, the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) is reported to have mulled direct interaction with China. Appearing as it did in the headlines of the China Times, the TSU's action indeed came as a shock.
The pan-blue camp considered the TSU's move to be to its advantage, as it indicates that the visits by both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) chairmen to China have triggered a domino effect, causing even the most vociferous pro-independence party to jump on the "China fever" bandwagon. Most pan-greens found the TSU's move unbelievable and suicidal.
It's hardly surprising to see that the TSU is drawing a great deal of criticism after its intentions were made public. In addition, the party's lame attempts to explain its proposed new policy shows that they have yet to grasp the gravity of the situation.
The party official who proposed the policy shift, Director of the TSU's Department of Policy Studies Lee Hsien-jen (
To defend his position on this issue, TSU Chairman Shu Chin-chiang (蘇進強) said that the TSU would not jump on the China bandwagon and that in interacting with Beijing, it would adopt the principle of the "three noes": it would not rule out possibilities, not reject possibilities and not actively pursue such possibilities.
Most party members won't object to that. But the real problem is this. The TSU has now agreed to support "normal" cross-strait relations on two conditions: first, that China stop its restriction of Taiwan's international space. Second, that China not insist on unification as a precondition for talks. If those conditions are met, the TSU has in turn said it will not set independence as a condition for talks. Under these parameters, Shu said, the two sides of the Strait could pursue a normalization of relations. While this is not exactly an about-face, it is certainly a shift to a more moderate position.
It's fine if the TSU takes a more moderate tack. But we must realize that when the TSU shifts, a new political group will immediately take over its current ideological position. This is typical of the political scene in Taiwan. The point is, the TSU will be pronounced dead on the day it begins moving to the moderate center, for its existence as a party is meaningless without its pro-independence stance.
The TSU's shift has a lot to do with the "single-member district, two-vote" electoral system that will be used for future legislative elections. As the "fundamentalist" group in the pan-green camp, the TSU is now worried that they will not be able to survive under the new system unless they adopt a more centrist approach.
To be sure, the new electoral system puts the TSU at a distinct disadvantage. However, will abandoning their core ideology win them more votes? They will likely suffer more than benefit from trying to moderate their stance. What sets the TSU apart and gives it appeal at the ballot box is that it champions establishing Taiwan as an independent country.
There's another, perhaps even more serious question: In light of the recent proposal, do the members of the TSU still represent the ideals of former president Lee Teng-hui (
Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator based in Taipei.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS