A delegation of six Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) local government leaders and two independents traveled to Beijing to offer their acceptance of the “1992 consensus” and request that the cities and counties under their administration be given preferential tourism treatment by China.
The “blue eight” might be moving in the gray areas of Taiwanese legislation, but the issue of whether they are living up to their political responsibility must be looked into.
DISTANCE
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and her administration do not accept the “1992 consensus” and its claims that Taiwan is a part of China, but the blue eight completely ignore their local government roles and try to distance themselves from all other cities and counties by relying on China as if they were part of it.
In doing so, they are at the same time publicly disregarding the central government’s mandate and Taiwanese public opinion.
The KMT has praised the blue eight for surrendering to Beijing. The party has clearly forgotten how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) used calls for “regional peace” to sow division by accepting the surrender of local warlords and politicians only to throw Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and what was left of his rule out of China.
POWERLESS
Most people do not take an optimistic view of the blue eight. Discounting Kinmen and Lienchiang counties and the three cities and counties that were represented by unelected deputy leaders, the whole exercise looks very weak.
Local governments have no visa issuing rights and they do not have the right to sign agreements, so all they can really do is criticize the central government.
The blue eight have made it clear that they are in favor of urgent unification and they will end up in the same place as the KMT — spurned by the public.
The blue eight hide behind claims that they are working hard for the economy and for the tourism industry, but this has already been proven false.
ONE DRAGON
Early in former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) first term in office, he authorized someone to ask China to help his administration get over an economic hump.
One solution was to send more tourists to Taiwan, sell more Taiwanese products and encourage Chinese to invest in Taiwan.
The result was the harmful “one-dragon” service — the unified management of Chinese tour groups controlled by Chinese and Hong Kong companies that control the consumption of Chinese tourists in Taiwan. It did nothing to improve the Taiwanese economy.
SOLIDARITY
The requests submitted to Beijing by the blue eight are a copy of the requests Ma submitted during his presidency. They give China a political lifesaver that it can offer or withdraw at will and use to tie Taiwan’s hands, using the same tricks as a con artist to cause trouble for the Tsai administration.
As KMT mayors and county commissioners play political games, there is nothing stopping the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government from responding to the blue eight by increasing resources and improving the quality of the tourist experience in cities and counties run by DPP members.
This would perhaps teach them a lesson about solidarity and unity toward the outside world and about recklessly overstepping their bounds to help China divide Taiwan.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS