Last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman and presidential candidate Eric Chu (朱立倫) visited Washington. Most of the Taiwanese media were primarily interested in whether Chu was extended the same courtesy, and met with people at the same level, as Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson and presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) during her visit to the US capital in June.
Indeed, the US government did bend over backward to make sure that was the case, and emphasized that it does not take sides or play favorites in Taiwan’s election campaign.
Taiwanese wanted to focus on the substance of Chu’s message to Washington, but regrettably, Chu did not give any public speech, like Tsai did at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where she gave a major policy address that was widely applauded.
There are only two snippets of Chu’s message to Washington: an opinion piece in the conservative Washington Times on Thursday last week and brief remarks before his closed-door meeting at the Brookings Institution on Friday.
In the Washington Times article — titled “Cross-strait peace on the line” — Chu said that “cross-strait peace and stability is now on the line,” adding that if Tsai is elected president in January, any deviation from the so-called “1992 consensus” would be “incurring war.”
Chu’s words amount to irresponsible scaremongering. He is playing into China’s hands by threatening that any move away from the current failed policies of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) would lead to disaster.
Chu obviously neglected to mention to his US interlocutors that Ma and the KMT are so unpopular in Taiwan precisely because of their pro-China policies of the past seven years. A majority of people in Taiwan see these policies as a dangerous slippery slope toward unification.
That is why Taiwanese want to see new policies and are so supportive of Tsai and the DPP, who are searching for a new formula to provide a more solid and long-term basis for stable relations across the Taiwan Strait, whereby China accepts Taiwan as a friendly neighbor. This would provide better safeguards for Taiwan’s future as a free and democratic nation.
By harping on about the concocted “1992 consensus,” Ma and Chu want to restrict Tsai’s room for maneuver if she is elected president, and prevent her from exploring new avenues where a better peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait can be achieved.
As it is, Chu also committed a diplomatic blunder by raising differences between the political parties in Taiwan while visiting a foreign nation.
There is an unwritten rule internationally that states that partisan politics should stop at national borders. By failing to observe this rule, Chu acted in an unstatesmanlike fashion.
However, the main issue is whether Taiwan — and the US — should pursue policies that push Taiwan closer to a repressive and undemocratic China, as Ma’s government has done during the past seven years, or whether it is possible to devise a new and more constructive approach that helps Taiwan remain a free and democratic nation.
The answer on the Taiwan side is to be given when Taiwanese go to the polls on Jan. 16 and elect a new president and legislature.
On the US side, there also needs to be some serious rethinking, so the US can move beyond its worn-out “one China” policy mantra, and develop a new and more constructive framework that celebrates Taiwan’s vibrant democracy. One that is more supportive of gaining a rightful place in the international community for Taiwan and its freedom-loving people.
Mark Kao is president of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS