On Aug. 25 Ding Zilin (
The letter opens by thanking Ma for his long-term support over the Tiananmen Square massacre, before changing its tone and moving on to the issue of the KMT's policy regarding China. She says, "In all honesty, for many years now, I have become disillusioned with the KMT, not only because of their defeat in the 2000 presidential elections, but more because of their vacillating cross-strait policy. Former KMT chairman Lien Chan's (
I have known Ding for many years now, and know her to be a gentle and refined person. Therefore, it came as quite a surprise to me when, referring to Lien's trip to China, she resorted to language such as "more than one could take," and "ridiculous." It is quite apparent just how rattled Ding was by the incident.
She offers the following suggestion to the KMT: "A politician, and in fact even a political party, can lose everything except for one thing: It cannot lose the courage to stand up to a stronger power."
Surely, the KMT would do well to take this advice to heart.
On accepting the position of KMT chairman, Ma took on a serious challenge: whether or not to continue on the "Lien Chan route." To this, Ding says, "as far as I can see, there is nothing complicated about cross-strait relations. When it comes down to it, it is a conflict between two systems. If talks are to be held, then everything should be laid out on the negotiating table, not just the three links, and not just fruit and pandas. They need to discuss human rights, they need to discuss political reform and they need to discuss freedom of the press. They certainly cannot limit the negotiations merely to issues that Beijing wants to talk about. On the contrary, the less Beijing wants to discuss a certain issue, the more important it is to broach it, as these issues tend to concern the welfare of the people."
This is no longer a mere suggestion: It is a heart-felt hope, it is sincere advice. However, one does wonder whether the KMT will actually listen.
For a long time now there has been a major blind spot in the way Taiwan has approached the cross-strait issue. It has paid exclusive attention to what the Chinese Communist Party is doing, while entirely ignoring what the Chinese people think about the issue. This shows a lack of understanding of China. In fact, as Ding has pointed out, "a more humane system is sure to take root in China eventually."
The Chinese communists may well represent today's China, but they certainly don't represent tomorrow's. Any Taiwanese politician with foresight should seek out, and listen to, the voice of the Chinese people, which even now is getting louder.
Wang Dan is a member of the Chinese democracy movement, a visiting scholar at Harvard University and a member of the Taipei Society.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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