No statements seem too ridiculous in Taiwan, with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and its unbelievable claims. The KMT promotes national policies that bear no relation to the realities on the streets and in the homes of Taiwan. What Taiwan needs is not a fantasy world, but a sustainable future based on harmony between national policies, the wishes of the population and the realities of Taiwan today.
A few examples illustrate the upside-down perspective of Taiwan’s relationship with China, such as President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) considering himself president of China and Taiwan, despite the fact that the whole world recognizes Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) as the president of China.
It also makes no sense to say that the recently signed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) is between “two regions” in the Republic of China, and to claim that the agreement upholds Taiwan’s sovereignty based on a non-existent “1992 consensus” about “one China.”
The government has promised “no unification” during Ma’s presidency. Therefore, it also appears illogical to promote unification by calling China’s response “pragmatic,” as the presidential spokeman did after China emphasized that Singapore “should recognize China’s sovereignty over Taiwan” when Taiwan and Singapore initiated talks about a trade deal.
The negative consequences for Taiwan because of these statements are twofold: First, they portray Taiwan as a part of China to the international community. This would be a reasonable policy if the Taiwanese approved, but they do not. More than 80 percent of the public said no to China’s “one country, two systems” policy in a recent Mainland Affairs Council survey. Given a free choice, 72 percent would vote for independence.
Second, because these statements and policies are not in harmony with what the Taiwanese public wants, they are not sustainable. To enforce such policies, the government will need to employ an unacceptable degree of political engineering to overcome resistance, which will lead only to more division.
On the domestic front, there have also been several ridiculous statements by the KMT. KMT News recently hinted that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is a “kind of Taiwanese Nazi Party,” evidently comparing the achievements of a democratic party with the atrocities of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, despite the fact that the DPP has had no comparable policies and embraces all people living in Taiwan.
A KMT news story on July 19 identified independence sentiment and the DPP with corruption and war, with no mention of the KMT’s own long tradition of corruption, and despite the fact that the KMT’s unification drive is no guarantee of peace for Taiwan.
Again, the KMT is trying to create a fantasy world. The problem is that the propaganda is not only fallacious, but also generates an increased and unnecessary disharmony in Taiwan.
A sustainable future requires harmony between the national policies and wishes of the population in a democratic dialogue. It is crucial for Taiwan to avoid this kind of demonization and promotion of imagined worlds, and instead to develop mutual respect and reach a level of trust where public differences are realized and can be handled.
When the international community embraces the ECFA and related policies in ignorance of these tendencies toward disharmony, they risk supporting unsustainable development. Instead, support for Taiwan’s right to self-determination, as well as democratic and economic development, is needed to foster mutual understanding in Taiwan.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of the Copenhagen-based Taiwan Corner.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with