The main difference between political pundits and elected officials is that pundits can at most drive national conversation and help shape public opinion, whereas officials have been given the authority to turn words into actions. Many wonder what actions the Democratic Progressive Party government will take to back up President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) tough talk following Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) remarks on Jan. 2.
Only 19 percent of respondents in a poll by the Taiwan Brain Trust late last month approved of Tsai, but her popularity skyrocketed after she on Jan. 2 sternly repudiated Xi’s assertions earlier that day that Taiwan “must and will be” united with China based on the so-called “1992 consensus” and the “one China” principle, and his proposal of a “one country, two systems” framework.
In a Cross-Strait Policy Association poll published on Wednesday last week, 61.1 percent of respondents said they were satisfied with Tsai’s response, while 85.2 percent said that they supported her “four musts” — that China must recognize the existence of the Republic of China, respect the values of democracy and freedom that Taiwan’s 23 million people hold dear, resolve cross-strait differences in a peaceful and equitable manner, and negotiate directly with the government or institutions with a mandate from the government.
Tsai’s words were encouraging and clearly expressed Taiwan’s intention to defend its sovereignty, but tough talk is not enough: Tsai must act on her statements, or the public might think she was merely trying to salvage her approval ratings. If Tsai is serious about upholding and asserting the nation’s sovereignty internationally, there are several steps she could take.
When former minister of health Lin Tzou-yien (林奏延) was given the chance to speak at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2016, he used the designation “Chinese Taipei” rather than “Taiwan” for the nation. If Tsai means business, she must instruct all officials to trumpet the name “Taiwan” or the nation’s official name, the Republic of China (ROC), in all international forums.
Exceptionally, many senior pan-blue politicians voiced their opposition to Xi’s proposal of a “one country, two systems” framework, including Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), former KMT chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) and, most notably, KMT Legislator Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安), grandson of former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) and a fourth-generation descendant of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石).
Tsai should seize this rare instance of agreement between the pan-blue and pan-green camps, and try to get all Taiwan’s political parties to throw their support behind the nation’s sovereignty in the face of China’s determination to wipe both Taiwan and the ROC off the world map.
No matter whether opinion leaders support “Taiwan independence” (台獨, taidu) or “ROC independence” (華獨, huadu), Tsai, in her capacity as president, must reach out to them and bring them together to discuss how they can join forces to counter China’s ambitions with one voice. Together, they can prevent Beijing from silencing voices in support of Taiwan’s or the ROC’s sovereignty.
Tsai has shown the public that she can talk the talk. All eyes are now on her to see whether she can walk the walk. Hopefully, she was not just paying lip service to the nation’s sovereignty.
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), during an interview for the podcast Lanshuan Time (蘭萱時間) released on Monday, said that a US professor had said that she deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize following her meeting earlier this month with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Cheng’s “journey of peace” has garnered attention from overseas and from within Taiwan. The latest My Formosa poll, conducted last week after the Cheng-Xi meeting, shows that Cheng’s approval rating is 31.5 percent, up 7.6 percentage points compared with the month before. The same poll showed that 44.5 percent of respondents
Taiwan should reject two flawed answers to the Eswatini controversy: that diplomatic allies no longer matter, or that they must be preserved at any cost. The sustainable answer is to maintain formal diplomatic relations while redesigning development relationships around transparency, local ownership and democratic accountability. President William Lai’s (賴清德) canceled trip to Eswatini has elicited two predictable reactions in Taiwan. One camp has argued that the episode proves Taiwan must double down on support for every remaining diplomatic ally, because Beijing is tightening the screws, and formal recognition is too scarce to risk. The other says the opposite: If maintaining
India’s semiconductor strategy is undergoing a quiet, but significant, recalibration. With the rollout of India Semiconductor Mission (ISM) 2.0, New Delhi is signaling a shift away from ambition-driven leaps toward a more grounded, capability-led approach rooted in industrial realities and institutional learning. Rather than attempting to enter the most advanced nodes immediately, India has chosen to prioritize mature technologies in the 28-nanometer to 65-nanometer range. That would not be a retreat, but a strategic alignment with domestic capabilities, market demand and global supply chain gaps. The shift carries the imprimatur of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, indicating that the recalibration is
RSS