What is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) vision for Taiwan? An answer to this question is warranted after the KMT agreed to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) under the “one China” framework.
The cocktail of policies over the past five years further accentuates the need for an answer because they seem to be no more than tactical initiatives. The vision that these initiatives are serving is not stated and thus left open to interpretation. Uncertainty about Taiwan’s future is not what Taiwan needs as China’s international influence is growing rapidly.
The KMT’s policies and the “one China” framework must lead the international community to conclude that the KMT government is consciously or unconsciously directing Taiwan toward a Hong Kong model or even toward China. If this is the official policy, then KMT should be honest and state it clearly.
The KMT’s Taiwan policies are embedded in policies such as the nonexistent “1992 consensus” and the policy of no independence, no unification and no use of force. The problem with these policies are that they are empty phrases stating nothing about the KMT’s vision for Taiwan. Moreover, policies based on negations about what you will not do will never lead a country forward.
The lack of a vision for Taiwan has generated a friendly relationship with China, which has been recognized worldwide. However, if increased international space for Taiwan was a desired goal of these friendly relationships, the KMT has failed miserably.
Taiwan’s observer status is subject to annual approval from China and the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement between Taiwan and China has not yet been sent to the WTO. Consequently, both achievements have lowered Taiwan’s international status.
The fundamental problem is that the KMT’s policies appear to mimic the policies of Hong Kong’s government. Hong Kong is fast becoming more Chinese and less uniquely Hong Kong. The consequence is that Taiwanese business has become an ally in the cross-strait policies and Taiwanese media has become increasingly influenced by Chinese agendas. Thus, China can influence Taiwan in many areas and its influence is growing.
However, Hong Kong’s development offers concrete lessons on how to resist China’s influence, and Taiwan’s politicians and civil society are already learning from Hong Kong. Civil society in Taiwan can play a significant role in resisting China’s policies. This requires that the otherwise inspiring demonstrations like the ones against media mergers and support for the Huaguang Community (華光社區) are elevated to questions about cross-strait policies and the future of Taiwan.
On the political level, politicians have to play a fine balance between resistance and cooperation with China. This requires bold leadership from the opposition parties and courage to safeguard the right for Taiwanese to determine their own future.
It is time for the Taiwanese to demand that their KMT government make a clear policy statement on its vision for Taiwan. The KMT is likely to fail on this.
It is interesting to observe that recently disclosed US files from March 1949 show that the CIA believed that the KMT “could not be relied upon to prevent the communists from gaining control of the island.”
Today, the files set the current cross-strait development and the KMT’s lack of a vision for Taiwan into historical perspective.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner.
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is
RSS