Seminar presentations don’t come any more laughable than this. Zheng Bijian (鄭必堅), a former vice president of the Central Party School of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), yesterday repaid his Taiwanese hosts’ hospitality with a lecture on how aspirations for Taiwanese independence would fade amid longing for improved cross-strait relations.
The seminar, organized by the pro-unification Pacific Cultural Foundation — an organization with historical links to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hardliners — was notable for the relatively benign language used by the Chinese speakers, in keeping with this era of presumed cross-strait detente.
It goes without saying that officials linked to the CCP Central Party School — which probably cultivates more corrupt officials per capita than any like institution in the world — are propagandists. It is incorrect to describe them as “experts” on Taiwan, as the foundation does, when the CCP line dictates that messages of simplicity dominate cross-strait debate.
Expertise implies an appreciation of complexity, but the line followed by China’s “Taiwan experts” — from top to bottom — is invariably normative in analytical dress and contemptuous of other opinions.
More notable was the ennui with which the Chinese delegation was greeted. In a country of 23 million people, surely there would be just a few thousand who would be willing to mobilize and give these grim envoys a message they would never forget?
Alas, no.
These days, key Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators are much more interested in generating political capital by hitting out at foreigners who actually contribute something to the country.
An example: It was a race to the bottom of the barrel at the legislature’s Transportation Committee on Wednesday, with legislators on both sides of politics producing foreigner-bashing humdingers.
KMT Legislator Lo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾), whose willingness to publicly defy party orthodoxy has displeased President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) himself, on this occasion let stupidity get the better of her, asking why Taiwanese staff could not replace contracted foreign managers at the Taiwan High Speed Rail Corp.
But the charge was led by DPP Legislator Yeh Yi-jin (葉宜津) in her typically shrill fashion, attacking two foreign managers responsible for operations and contractual matters, whose sole offense, it appears, was to have salaries much higher than hers.
The irony, of course, is that the problems with the high speed rail system have little to do with infrastructure, which is safe, reliable and comfortable, or with contractual and operational matters, which have been reasonably smooth.
The DPP is thus heading into local elections with a recurring ailment: disregarding and even openly offending foreigners who in many, if not most, cases are valuable contributors to the building of Taiwan.
DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) surely recognizes this problem — and that its origins lie in opportunism rather than ideological hostility — but the DPP’s reputation among foreign businesspeople, for example, has not improved under her watch. With spurious language coming from Yeh Yi-jin, a senior party official, this will not change anytime soon.
After all this time, there are still members of the DPP who do not understand the difference between “English-speaking foreigners” who help to improve and even protect the country and foreigners from China who would, as necessary, destroy everything in a heartbeat. These dim-witted DPP figures would do their party, their cause and the public a favor by pondering the consequences of alienating foreign professionals of repute for the sake of a cheap smear.
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
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
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