The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are like identical twins. They think the same way, use the same methods and say the same things.
When local civic organizations began to push for a referendum on the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City, among the communities in the plant’s evacuation zone — Taipei, New Taipei City, Keelung, and Yilan City — the KMT tried to play down the scale of the opposition by saying that it is a national rather than a local issue, and that a referendum should be national. The hope was that regardless of how much opposition there was in the communities included in the evacuation zone, they would be outvoted at the national level.
There the issue remains, stuck between calls for a national and a local referendum.
When Tainan Mayor William Lai (賴清德) visited Shanghai recently, he said in an interview that a majority of Taiwanese supported independence. In Taiwan, this is common knowledge, as pro-independence support has surpassed 60 percent in every recent poll on the issue and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is joined by a public majority and most KMT members in saying that the nation’s future should be decided by the 23 million Taiwanese.
However, this is anathema to the CCP.
Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) spokesperson Fan Liqing (范麗青) tried to derail Lai’s comments by saying that any issue that involves Chinese sovereignty and territory must be decided jointly by all Chinese, including Taiwanese. With 23 million votes against 1.3 billion, Taiwan could never win, and it would never escape China’s grasp.
This year was the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and demands for democracy are growing across the Strait. China has strengthened its control and increased its pressure on those calling for democracy and freedom.
In addition, on Tuesday, China’s State Council released a white paper on the state of the “one country, two systems” arrangement in Hong Kong. The paper specified that Beijing has comprehensive jurisdiction over Hong Kong, that Hong Kong has only the right to manage local affairs and that the territory’s right to autonomy depends on how much power the central government gives it.
The only thing that remains of China’s promise of “one country, two systems” and a high degree of autonomy is the phrase “one country, two systems.”
The white paper is aimed at the reinvigorated “Occupy Central” campaign and the scheduled June 22 referendum on three electoral reform proposals.
However, throughout the ages, the policies of highly suppressive authoritarian regimes have met with strong reactions.
For example, China’s suppression of riots in Xinjiang were followed by Uighur attacks, its pressure on Tibet has caused a series of Tibetan monks to burn themselves to death and its persecution of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波), artist Ai Weiwei (艾未未) and human rights activist Chen Guangcheng (陳光誠) have served only to raise the dissidents’ international profile and increase their influence.
In the past century, the KMT suppressed opposition in Taiwan, but in the end, the party’s despotic rule failed and the nation managed to cast off its authoritarianism and walk toward democracy.
China’s efforts to maintain stability by increasing pressure employ the wrong strategy. The people in Hong Kong and Taiwan know freedom and democracy; threats and pressure will not subdue them.
Neither Hong Kong nor Taiwan will go back to authoritarian rule and China’s only hope in winning them over requires democracy and human rights.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS