Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) is scheduled to arrive in Taipei today for talks. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) says that the four agreements due to be signed at Chen’s meeting with Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) are necessary for Taiwan, and he has sought to dispel fears of a sellout. He says the agreements will be enormously beneficial to Taiwan’s development.
Many people, however, do not believe Ma. Several groups plan to protest during Chen’s visit, and the list of activities includes egg throwing, sit-ins, rallies and sieges. Seven thousand police officers will be mobilized and razor-wire barriers laid down to contain the protesters. Taipei City will not be a peaceful place for the next few days.
Although the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are now reconciled and ready to sign agreements, the KMT has not achieved a consensus on cross-strait policy with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
During the 1993 SEF-ARATS meeting in Singapore, then-DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) staged a protest outside the talks venue. Now, as then, the major political conflict affecting cross-strait relations is not between the KMT and the CCP, but between the KMT and the DPP. Eight years of DPP government did not change this fundamental dichotomy.
Where do the KMT and DPP differ? Actually, the agreements to be signed at this SEF-ARATS meeting hardly differ from proposals mooted under the DPP administration. The real difference will be in the atmosphere of the talks and the symbols related to national sovereignty. The real point of sensitivity lies in whether Taiwan’s welcome for Chen and his attitude to the government and people of Taiwan are in the spirit of mutual equality and dignity.
Pressed by reporters, Ma recently asked: “Can you give me one example of anything I have done to sell out Taiwan?”
It is true that Ma has done nothing specific to sell out the country. He has, however, referred to Taiwan as an “area” and said that Chen can call him “Mr Ma” rather than “president.” Ma defended himself by saying that the terms “Taiwan area” and “mainland area” were written into the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China in 1992. But Ma’s remark constitutes a retreat for Taiwan’s desire for sovereignty back to the situation 16 years ago, and is out of line with public opinion today. For a president to back down from recognizing his own status in his own country for fear of offending China is a worrying show of weakness.
Neither Ma nor China really understand Taiwanese public opinion or the concerns of Taiwan’s opposition parties. What Chen needs to do to make a good impression on Taiwanese does not hinge on the content of agreements. It cannot be achieved by giving Taiwan pandas, nor by shedding crocodile tears as ARATS Vice Chairman Zhang Mingqing (張銘清) did during his recent visit. The key question is whether Chen respects the feelings of Taiwanese and whether he will address Ma as “president.”
Public support for Ma and his government has fallen to less than 30 percent. Ma sees this week’s talks as a golden opportunity to regain popularity with a breakthrough in cross-strait relations. Of course the agreements themselves will bring some benefits, but China’s real attitude to Taiwan will be revealed by exactly what Chen says when he meets Ma. This will be the real test of Chen’s visit, cross-strait relations and Ma’s popularity.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS