The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had been eagerly anticipating Taiwan’s presidential and legislative elections this year ever since President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) 2016 victory upset its plans, and it has worked hard since then to frustrate Tsai’s efforts to improve the nation’s economy and forge cross-strait dialogue.
Its “united front” efforts have let slip the dogs of war to infiltrate, distort and manipulate in an attempt to see the reins of government in Taiwan returned to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which Beijing regards as far more amenable to its cause.
Taiwanese voters on Saturday last week once again thwarted Beijing’s plans, sending a clear message that, on the level of cross-strait relations at least — the scale of the presidential victory was not reflected in the party vote in the legislative elections — they preferred the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) vision over that of the KMT, and felt more comfortable under Tsai’s stewardship than what the KMT’s candidate was offering.
The results should have been a confirmation that 2016 was not simply an inconvenient blip, and was a true representation of the Taiwanese public will. It would be reasonable for Beijing to adjust its calculations accordingly.
However, as the legislative elections showed, the KMT has retained its core voter base. Some of its supporters hope for unification, others remember the heyday of Taiwan’s economic miracle under the KMT before China opened its market to the world, associating the KMT with economic prosperity.
Yet as time goes on, the proportion of the electorate that remembers this heyday will shrink, just as the proportion of the electorate that has known nothing but life in a democratic system, and who identify with Taiwan over China, increases.
If the CCP wants to win Taiwanese hearts and minds, and was hoping for the KMT’s assistance, time is trickling away.
In addition to the aforementioned “natural independence” effect, the CCP has to accept that the DPP will continue to be the ruling party, at least in the short term.
Not only does Beijing have another four years of a Tsai presidency to contend with, it should prepare for the possibility that vice president-elect William Lai (賴清德), her natural successor within the DPP, could succeed her as president. The former Tainan mayor is more openly pro-independence than Tsai, and he enjoys broad support within the party.
After four years of rejecting dialogue with Tsai because of her refusal to enter talks with the so-called “1992 consensus” as a prerequisite, Beijing might now be wise to soften its approach and compromise on its demands, but it appears to be in no mood to do so yet, judging by the reaction yesterday of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office.
Office spokesman Ma Hsiao-kuang (馬曉光) told a Beijing news conference that the CCP would continue to insist on the “1992 consensus” as a prerequisite to dialogue.
Advocating Taiwan independence was the greatest threat to cross-strait peace and stability, and Beijing was determined to frustrate these efforts, he said, citing word-for-word parts of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) speech to the opening of the CCP’s 19th National Congress on Oct. 18, 2017.
Nobody should obstruct the peaceful and stable development of cross-strait relations, he said, without a hint of irony.
Finally, he reiterated Beijing’s contention that Taiwan belongs to all Chinese, including the Taiwanese, and Taiwan’s future was for all Chinese people to decide together.
One could hope that Ma’s rhetoric was merely the opening sally in anticipation of engaging in pragmatic dialogue. Unfortunately, nothing the CCP has done in the past suggests that this is likely.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS