Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) over the weekend said the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was “extending” domestic politics abroad by sending a delegation headed by King Pu-tsung (金溥聰), executive director of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) re-election campaign, to the US just days ahead of her long-planned trip.
While Tsai’s assessment of King’s visit was likely right on target, it nevertheless came across as somewhat childish. Yes, as the party in power, the KMT could send delegations to the US any time of the year, and yes, the timing of King’s visit is conspicuous. That being said, there is no rule that says the KMT cannot send a delegation abroad whenever DPP officials embark on a foreign trip.
Both Tsai and King, certainly not by coincidence, are scheduled to give speeches at Harvard University on Thursday. Rather than engage in recriminations and conspiracy theories, the DPP presidential candidate should instead use King’s presence to contrast her policies with those of Ma.
Her main task while in the US should not be to disparage the KMT for trying to “undermine” her visit — rhetoric that is certain to have little appeal with Taiwanese-Americans and potential supporters in academia — but rather to prove to an audience that may be a little skeptical that a new DPP administration would be one that Washington could work with.
There is no doubt that Tsai’s party has an image handicap overseas, mostly the result of the previous DPP administration’s less-than-stellar track record and, even more importantly, a sustained propaganda campaign in the media — both in Taiwan and abroad — that tends to favor the KMT.
Tsai now has a golden opportunity to allay fears that an “irrational” DPP would spark armed conflict in the Taiwan Strait and show the world that under her guidance, the party would not only avoid past mistakes, but is in fact better equipped to protect the rights and interests of Taiwanese.
Of course, such convincing is easier said than done, and Tsai will need to summon all her oratorical skills to present a platform that consists of more than sloganeering. There is a desire among many US officials and academics to work with Tsai for the benefit of a free Taiwan, but that will is oftentimes constrained by the great uncertainty surrounding her policies.
Defense — a key aspect of the US-Taiwan relationship — is an area where Tsai’s camp has yet to provide clear and reassuring leadership. Here is a chance for her, while in the US, to show that she would be a strong commander-in-chief where her predecessor, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), was perceived as weak by the armed forces, and suffered as a result.
Tsai should use this opportunity to demonstrate that her party has a “Plan B” for Oct. 2, the day after US President Barack Obama’s administration announces its final decision on the proposed F-16 sale to Taiwan. While the Ma administration, the KMT and the Ministry of National Defense have all failed to come up with alternatives should the F-16C/D sale be denied — a likely scenario — Tsai should be heading to the US with a list of alternatives and prescriptions.
Whether she has those remains to be seen, but one thing is sure: Engaging in mudslinging with King on US soil, and thereby extending domestic politics abroad, will not win her points — not at home and certainly not in the US.
In September 2013, the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) quietly released an internal document entitled, “Coursebook on the Military Geography of the Taiwan Strait.” This sensitive, “military-use-only” coursebook explains why it is strategically vital that China “reunify” (annex) Taiwan. It then methodically analyzes various locations of interest to People’s Liberation Army (PLA) war planners. The coursebook highlights one future battlefield in particular: Fulong Beach, in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District, which it describes as “3,000 meters long, flat, and straight,” and located at “the head of Taiwan.” A black and white picture of Fulong’s sandy coastline occupies the
US President Joe Biden’s first news conference last month offered reassuring and concerning insights regarding his administration’s approach to China. Biden did not mention the contentious meeting in Alaska where US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan confronted China’s top two foreign policy officials. The Americans implicitly affirmed the administration of former US president Donald Trump’s direct pushback against communist China’s repressive domestic governance and aggressive international behavior. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) and Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) had explicitly demanded a return to the policies of
Early last month, China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC), officially approved the country’s 14th Five-Year Plan. The strategy was supposed to demonstrate that China has a long-term economic vision that would enable it to thrive, despite its geopolitical contest with the US. However, before the ink on the NPC’s stamp could dry, China had already begun sabotaging the plan’s chances of success. The new plan’s centerpiece is the “dual-circulation” strategy, according to which China would aim to foster growth based on domestic demand and technological self-sufficiency. This would not only reduce China’s reliance on external demand; it would also
Interrupting the assimilation of Xinjiang’s Uighur population would result in an unmanageable national security threat to China. Numerous governments and civil society organizations around the world have accused China of massive human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and labeled Beijing’s inhumane and aggressive social re-engineering efforts in the region as “cultural genocide.” Extensive evidence shows that China’s forceful ethnic assimilation policies in Xinjiang are aimed at replacing Uighur ethnic and religious identity with a so-called scientific communist dogma and Han Chinese culture. The total assimilation of Uighurs into the larger “Chinese family” is also Beijing’s official, central purpose of its ethnic policies