The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) protested the Mainland Affairs Council’s criticism over the party’s latest China policy announcement, accusing it of having become the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) mainland affairs department. However, it may be more justified to compare the council to a branch of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office.
The DPP said in its China Affairs Committee meeting last week that the party’s fundamental principle in cross-strait relations would be maintaining the “status quo.”
DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said later that the “status quo” refers to peaceful and stable exchanges across the Taiwan Strait.
Responding to the DPP’s policy direction, the Taiwan Affairs Office on Friday reiterated its stance that recognizing “one China” is the key to developing peaceful cross-strait relations, and, surprisingly — well, perhaps not that surprisingly — the Mainland Affairs Council issued a statement later that night accusing Tsai of being “too vague” on her China policy.
The Mainland Affairs Council said that only by abiding by the so-called “1992 consensus,” as the government has done since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office in 2008, could bring peaceful developments in cross-strait relations.
The “1992 consensus” refers to an agreement allegedly reached between Taiwanese and Chinese negotiators in 1992 that both sides would recognize that there is only “one China,” but each could make its own interpretation of what “China” means. Former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) admitted in 2000 that he had fabricated the term “1992 consensus.”
First of all, what is wrong with being “vague?” In politics, being vague is an art, and it is sometimes used for practical reasons, especially when dealing with something as sensitive as cross-strait relations.
In fact, the “1992 consensus” that the Mainland Affairs Council loves so much is also part of a game involving being “vague.”
Tsai and the DPP have reason to be vague, because it is the party’s core belief that Taiwan is a sovereign nation. If Tsai diverts from such an idea and recognizes “one China,” she would be betraying the party’s core values and supporters. Hence, for the practical reason of maintaining peace and exchanges across the Taiwan Strait, she has to put the emphasis on remaining practical, while playing down the party’s ideology. This is exactly in accordance with the government’s policy of “shelving controversies to pursue win-win solutions,” as the Mainland Affairs Council says on its Web site.
If the DPP’s latest China policy is not much different from that of the government, besides not recognizing “one China,” why would the Mainland Affairs Council criticize it? Or maybe the question to ask is whether it is appropriate for a government agency — which is supposed to remain neutral — to take the initiative in attacking an opposition party?
The first question can only be answered by Mainland Affairs Council officials; however, for the latter question, it is clear that the answer is “no.”
Commenting on the Mainland Affairs Council’s criticism, DPP spokesperson Cheng Yun-peng (鄭運鵬) accused the council of having become the KMT’s “mainland affairs department.” However, because the council puts as much emphasis on “one China” as Beijing does, and because it issued the statement almost immediately after the Taiwan Affairs Office responded to the DPP’s announcement on China policy, it might be better to compare the council to an outpost of the Taiwan Affairs Office.
The US Senate’s passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which urges Taiwan’s inclusion in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise and allocates US$1 billion in military aid, marks yet another milestone in Washington’s growing support for Taipei. On paper, it reflects the steadiness of US commitment, but beneath this show of solidarity lies contradiction. While the US Congress builds a stable, bipartisan architecture of deterrence, US President Donald Trump repeatedly undercuts it through erratic decisions and transactional diplomacy. This dissonance not only weakens the US’ credibility abroad — it also fractures public trust within Taiwan. For decades,
In 1976, the Gang of Four was ousted. The Gang of Four was a leftist political group comprising Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members: Jiang Qing (江青), its leading figure and Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) last wife; Zhang Chunqiao (張春橋); Yao Wenyuan (姚文元); and Wang Hongwen (王洪文). The four wielded supreme power during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), but when Mao died, they were overthrown and charged with crimes against China in what was in essence a political coup of the right against the left. The same type of thing might be happening again as the CCP has expelled nine top generals. Rather than a
The ceasefire in the Middle East is a rare cause for celebration in that war-torn region. Hamas has released all of the living hostages it captured on Oct. 7, 2023, regular combat operations have ceased, and Israel has drawn closer to its Arab neighbors. Israel, with crucial support from the United States, has achieved all of this despite concerted efforts from the forces of darkness to prevent it. Hamas, of course, is a longtime client of Iran, which in turn is a client of China. Two years ago, when Hamas invaded Israel — killing 1,200, kidnapping 251, and brutalizing countless others
A Reuters report published this week highlighted the struggles of migrant mothers in Taiwan through the story of Marian Duhapa, a Filipina forced to leave her infant behind to work in Taiwan and support her family. After becoming pregnant in Taiwan last year, Duhapa lost her job and lived in a shelter before giving birth and taking her daughter back to the Philippines. She then returned to Taiwan for a second time on her own to find work. Duhapa’s sacrifice is one of countless examples among the hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who sustain many of Taiwan’s households and factories,
RSS