Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) rushed off to the US on July 10 after the director of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, Wang Yi (王毅), visited the US. Lai’s trip should have been aimed at erasing any propaganda Wang spread about cross-strait relations. Lai, however, got things mixed up and failed to eliminate erroneous ideas about Taiwan and China. Instead, she followed the old routine of focusing on the home market and propagated what a “great” job President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has done.
Wang’s message was clear. He said China-Taiwan relations are based on the “one China” framework expressed in the so-called “1992 consensus” and anti-Taiwanese independence and that this means Taiwan will be integrated with China. Wang then demanded the US stop military sales to Taiwan and called for the cancelation of the cross-strait median line.
While Lai said China still has missiles aimed at Taiwan and maintains its threat of military force, she suggested China remove that military threat if it really wants to “win the hearts” of the Taiwanese, thus forgetting the purpose of her visit.
By praising the success of the Ma administration’s policies, Lai was trying to show how these policies have helped move cross-strait relations from “mutual denial” to “mutual non-denial.” Hearing this from someone who served in the government of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) makes one wonder about the state of her memory. Under former presidents Lee and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the government did not deny the existence of the People’s Republic of China or China; it was only China that did not recognize Taiwan or the Republic of China (ROC) as a sovereign state.
Lai’s praise of “mutual non-denial” is problematic because it is unclear exactly what she was praising. Beijing does not deny that Taiwan is a local government of China, nor does it deny that Taiwan is part of China. What China does deny is that Taiwan or the ROC is a sovereign state.
At least two major errors appeared in a Washington Times interview with Lai. She was quoted as saying that Taiwan is a democratic country, but in the video recording of the interview she used the term “society,” not country. When asked whether 92 percent of Taiwanese really support the Ma administration’s China policies, Lai said the percentage referred to people who support maintaining the “status quo.”
Exactly what type of status quo is to be maintained? “Status quo” can refer to “one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait,” “one China, two governments” or that neither Taiwan nor China has jurisdiction over the other.
Lai let the cat out of the bag when she said the administration’s China policy aims to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. A Hong Kong style “peace and stability” can only be maintained by giving up sovereignty and independence and demoting Taiwan to an autonomous region of China.
The vast majority of Taiwanese define the “status quo” as one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait and peaceful coexistence. It is only on that foundation that mutual non-denial can meet their interests.
James Wang is a media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS