As expected, former deputy legislative speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), advocate of the “one China, same interpretation” formula, won the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairperson by-election and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), in his capacity as the Chinese Communist Party general secretary, promptly congratulated her.
Hung’s victory signifies that the KMT will not change its ways to become more Taiwan-centered just because it lost the Jan. 16 elections. Instead, it will continue pushing its “China ideology” and goal of eventual unification. The KMT’s stance bolsters Xi’s determination and is a victory for his political course.
Having been steeped in 5,000 years of stale, stagnant culture, the Chinese are unbeatable: Beijing would never back down from its “one China” principle and the KMT would never stop supporting the Republic of China’s “one China” Constitution.
Pro-localization parties that claim to represent Taiwan talk about “pragmatism” and “reconciliation,” as they come under pressure from cross-strait political and business organizations, and adjust their beliefs to adhere to the “one China” Constitution.
Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) recently said that “without its party assets, the KMT would be done for.” Is that really true?
Following the Sunflower movement, the leaders in Beijing started laying out a “four-year counterattack” plan and proposed a policy called the “three middle and one young” aimed at Taiwan’s small and medium-sized enterprises, medium and low-income households, central and southern Taiwan, and Taiwan’s younger generation.
Beijing has also set up the China National Development Foundation for outgoing President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to facilitate cooperation between the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits and the Straits Exchange Foundation after president-elect Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) takes office on May 20.
The “three middle and one young” policy is aimed at consolidating the strategy of bringing about unification through economic means among Taiwan’s grassroots. However, connecting with the low-income and middle classes as well as the younger generation requires a presence in Taiwan. That is the reason Beijing and Ma continue to care about the trade in services and goods agreements.
If the two agreements are passed, China can take advantage of its huge market to take over Taiwan’s service industries — including logistics, the Internet of Things and media — in the same way that Chinese travelers dominate Taiwan’s tourism industry. And it would not take four years.
The economic unification triad formed by the two agreements and the “three middle and one young” policy would be 100 times more powerful than the KMT’s billions of New Taiwan dollars worth of party assets and it would be sufficient to redraw Taiwan’s political map over the next four years.
It is important not to be taken in by opinion polls which show that 70 percent of Taiwanese identify themselves as Taiwanese and believe in independence as a result of natural progression, because in another poll asking about people’s expectations about the direction of the nation, 49.7 percent said they think unification is unavoidable.
That view would rapidly spread once China’s economic tentacles reach into every corner of Taiwan. It would become a formidable force.
Whether or not Hung would be able to make the KMT rise from its ashes will depend on how quickly the economic triad comes together and how well it will be complemented by another triad — Beijing, Hung and the foundation.
Huang Tien-lin is a former advisory member of the National Security Council and a former Presidential Office adviser.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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