Over the past week, a number of politicians have visited China for various reasons -- all seemingly selfless, noble and justified. In reality, these people are all seeking to advance the interests of a small segment of the people, themselves being a part of this segment.
They have volunteered to be loyal servants of the Chinese government. Their conduct will necessarily damage the collective interests of Taiwanese society and the nation. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) said on Thursday that he hoped these people would not become tools of unificationist propaganda. We believe that in addition to moral persuasion, if any illegal activities are involved in their visits to China, they should be severely punished. The public must also condemn and criticize the behavior of these people.
This flaring up of "China fever" referred to by Chen include not only the agricultural delegation made up of several lawmakers, but also a New Party delegation and about a hundred members of local level governments who attended a forum on local governance.
This is not to mention the delegation headed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Vice Chairman Chiang Ping-kun (江柄坤) which attended a cross-strait forum on the telecommunication industry, and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmaker Gao Jyh-peng (高志鵬) and People First Party (PFP) lawmaker Liu Yi-ju (劉憶如) who are planning on attending three financial and economic forums in China.
This is not a new wave of "China fever," but the continuation of a wave started after the KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) returned from their trips to China earlier this year. While Lien and Soong have justified their trips as a way to break the cross-strait impasse and as a means to foster peace, they have actually deepened Taiwan's domestic divisions and opened the door to visits by Chinese leaders.
KMT spokesman Chang Jung-kung (張榮恭) conceded that "the KMT actively seeks to be friendly with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in order to win back power in the presidential election in 2008." With greedy and selfish parties such as these within Taiwan, how can the Chinese government, bent on taking the nation at all costs, not make good use of them?
Despite the fact that China's oppression of Taiwan in the international community continues -- and it has been uncooperative about official cross-strait negotiations over cargo flight links and agricultural exports -- it has begun its unificationist propaganda campaign by using Taiwan's opposition parties. Generally speaking, the Chinese goal to engulf Taiwan remains unchanged. As for isolating the Taiwanese government, warming up to opposition parties and business interests, and dividing the pan-green and pan-blue camps, these are common tactics to bring about unification.
Facing Chinese unification campaigns, some politicians, such as Lien and Chiang, willingly tango with the Chinese government. Then there are those who embrace Chinese nationalism above universally-accepted democratic values, such as the New Party. Then there are those who either intentionally or unintentionally ignore the differences on either side of the Taiwan Strait and actively participate in cross-strait exchanges. In the end, they all fall prey to the unificationist campaign.
Take for example the Taiwanese participants of the forum on local government from the two sides of Taiwan Strait. They are all elected representatives of the people of Taiwan. Their job is to represent their constituents and monitor the government, not make friends with communists or phony lawmakers. Actually, those participating in the forum with these Taiwanese lawmakers are either CCP members or people appointed by the CCP. As President Chen noted, what is the point of "getting in touch" or "coming to an understanding" with these people?
These people do not represent the popular will of the Chinese people. They wine and dine with the Taiwanese because it is their job to do so. There are also some politicians and businesspeople who say that their contacts in China are not political in nature and have nothing to do with sovereignty issues. These people often call for the separation of political and business issues in dealing with China. They do these things as a way to justify their cooperation with Chinese and their unificationist propaganda.
China's unificationist tactics, while primarily based on military intimidation, also employ subtle political maneuvers. Take the telecommunications forum attended by Chiang as an example. The two sides have reached a consensus on 3G standards. This was accomplished as a result of an instruction issued by Beijing that constructive results must be attained from the forum. Because Beijing obviously used the forum as part of its unificationist campaign, questions from the US have been raised.
In light of the level of military and technological exchanges between Taiwan and US, the cross-strait agreement on 3G standards will necessarily trigger resentment and reaction from the US government. However, while the US is already anxious about China's military expansion, and while Japan and the US have listed Taiwan as a "common strategic objective," the pan-blue camp doesn't seem to care about international developments. Instead, it continues to boycott the arms procurement budget.
Politicians who are especially enthusiastic about visiting China have not only deceive themselves by giving non-political justifications for their visits, they also fail to stand up for Taiwan in an effort scuttle the sovereignty of the nation. Due to their compliant and meek attitude toward China, they view Chinese oppression of Taiwan as a necessary step. Then they come back to Taiwan and criticize the government for been "excessively political," and for willingly isolating itself.
The "China fever" has infected the blue camp to such an extent that they have become blind to the Chinese missiles targeting Taiwan. That blue camp politicians would try their reconcile their differences with the governing camp is inconceivable. Instead, they choose to reconcile with the enemy and to escalate internal divisions.
Politicians act in such a manner obviously because somebody is backing them up at home. Media independence from politics here simply does not exist. Public opinions in favor of China and against the US have been shaped deliberately. Not only are the hidden crises of Chinese economy deliberately concealed by some media outlets, but talk about China's "peaceful rise" and the "peaceful fall" of the US have began to surface.
The Japanese media have raised the possibility of a surprise attack on Taiwan by China followed by the establishment of a pro-China regime here. In view of the recent "China fever," pro-China political parties and media are already in place. When politicians can't be trusted to do what is best for the nation, it is up to the people of Taiwan to see China for what it is and prevent unification from materializing.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS