Before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) left for China on Sunday for the first time as party leader, former vice president Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) compared Hung’s trip to that made by then-KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) in 2005.
“Hung’s trip is reminiscent of the so-called ‘ice-breaking journey’ to Beijing made by KMT honorary chairman Lien in 2005, which paved the way for the party’s return to power in 2008,” Wu told reporters hours prior to Hung’s departure.
It is apparent that the fantasy that Hung’s trip — during which she met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Tuesday — would somehow put the KMT back in power in four or eight years’ time is shared by Beijing.
Since President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) took office on May 20, China has never tried to conceal that the primary reason it cut off official cross-strait communication mechanisms and imposed other punitive measures against her administration was Tsai’s refusal to recognize the so-called “1992 consensus,” which is just a sugar-coated reworking of the “one China” principle.
The “1992 consensus,” a term former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) admitted to making up in 2000, refers to a tacit understanding between the KMT and the Chinese government that both sides of the Taiwan Strait acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.
Beijing is clearly hoping that its browbeating of Tsai will force her administration to yield on the “consensus.” However, it is also seeking to make the KMT appear as if it is the only political party competent to negotiate with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on behalf of Taiwanese.
Such a tactic might have worked in 2008, when a global financial crisis made economic integration with then-fast-growing China tempting.
Another factor contributing to the KMT’s 2008 victory was a high-profile corruption scandal involving former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which prompted many to vote for then-KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
However, what Beijing is forgetting is that Taiwanese voters’ priorities have changed in the post-Ma era.
The DPP neither scrapped its independence platform nor compromised and acknowledged the “1992 consensus” in the run-up to the presidential election.
Despite Tsai’s apparent slide toward the middle ground when running for the top office, most voters understood that supporting Tsai and her party would undoubtedly result in a regression of cross-strait relations.
However, Tsai won nearly 57 percent of the 12 million valid votes cast in the Jan. 16 election. The reason is simple: The closer cross-strait ties and Taipei’s growing economic dependence on Beijing during Ma’s eight-year rule only benefited the elite, while ordinary Taiwanese were left to deal with the fallout.
The KMT and the CCP can continue to hold their annual get-togethers for as long as they deem necessary and talk about the possibility of signing a cross-strait peace accord as often as they want. Whatever agreements the two parties reach, they can only ever achieve party-to-party status and would not represent Taiwan and its 23 million people.
The CCP has to bear in mind that it would be riskier for it than for the KMT to continue as if the cross-strait dialogue is the exclusive property of two parties. The chance of the KMT making a political comeback is already slight. It will be even more remote after its ill-gotten assets are returned to the government.
Therefore, Beijing is betting on a lost cause if it thinks excluding the DPP from cross-strait talks will return the KMT to power and advance Beijing’s ultimate goal — unification.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers