One can guess that election time is around the corner when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) politicians start to warn that Taiwan could risk losing its diplomatic allies if the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) becomes the governing party.
Such was the case in the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election, when then-KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) pledged to adopt “flexible diplomacy” to end the nation’s diplomatic isolation and what he termed “pointless ‘scorched-earth diplomacy’ employed by the DPP,” which he described as “amateurish, capricious, dogmatic and based on brinkmanship.”
Similar rhetoric was sounded during Ma’s re-election campaign for the 2012 presidential election as he trumpeted his foreign policy of “modus vivendi” having promoted cross-strait peace and Beijing not stealing Taiwan’s diplomatic allies.
In a case of deja vu, earlier this week, Presidential Office spokesperson Charles Chen (陳以信) warned against the resurgence of diplomatic war with China, saying that a resumption of the DPP’s “scorched-earth diplomacy” would pose “an enormous risk to the ties across the Taiwan Strait and to our international relations and seriously undermine the peace and prosperity that has developed in the Taiwan Strait over the past seven-and-a-half years.”
Echoing Chen’s remarks, KMT Legislator Alex Tsai (蔡正元) — worrying that a victory for DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in next month’s presidential election could destabilize cross-strait ties — on Monday claimed that 18 of Taiwan’s 22 diplomatic allies have been lining up outside Beijing’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to establish diplomatic ties
Stepping up the rhetoric, Ma on Tuesday said that Taiwan lost six diplomatic allies under the previous DPP administration, whereas he consolidated diplomatic ties with allies since taking office in 2008, with the exception of losing the Gambia to China in 2013.
However, one has to ask: Has China really dropped its aggression and malice toward Taiwan while the KMT has been the governing party?
The answer is obvious: No.
The truth is that Ma’s so-called “cross-strait peace” is superficial, because Beijing has never renounced the use of force to achieve its goal of annexing Taiwan.
China’s enacting of the “Anti-Secession” Law shows nothing but malice and threatens peace.
China’s intentions are evidenced by the more than 1,600 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan along its eastern seaboard.
China’s ill intentions are made obvious by footage of its war games that showed drills featuring People’s Liberation Army troops maneuvering toward a five-story building with a tower resembling Taiwan’s Presidential Office Building.
In other words, what Ma has been touting as his diplomatic achievements are really more to Beijing’s credit than his.
No saber-rattling remarks have been necessary from China because the KMT has seemingly taken it upon itself to work on Beijing’s behalf, intimidating Taiwanese with talk, such as Alex Tsai’s.
Playing the “resurgence-of-diplomatic-war-with-China card” to frighten the public might have worked for the KMT before, but do Ma and Alex Tsai really take Taiwanese for fools and think they would fall for the same tricks again?
Rather than engaging in its old habit of intimidating people, the KMT would be well advised to put its resources toward the presentation of a concrete platform to convince voters that it deserves another four years in the Presidential Office.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily