A delegation of six Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) local government leaders and two independents traveled to Beijing to offer their acceptance of the “1992 consensus” and request that the cities and counties under their administration be given preferential tourism treatment by China.
The “blue eight” might be moving in the gray areas of Taiwanese legislation, but the issue of whether they are living up to their political responsibility must be looked into.
DISTANCE
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and her administration do not accept the “1992 consensus” and its claims that Taiwan is a part of China, but the blue eight completely ignore their local government roles and try to distance themselves from all other cities and counties by relying on China as if they were part of it.
In doing so, they are at the same time publicly disregarding the central government’s mandate and Taiwanese public opinion.
The KMT has praised the blue eight for surrendering to Beijing. The party has clearly forgotten how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) used calls for “regional peace” to sow division by accepting the surrender of local warlords and politicians only to throw Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and what was left of his rule out of China.
POWERLESS
Most people do not take an optimistic view of the blue eight. Discounting Kinmen and Lienchiang counties and the three cities and counties that were represented by unelected deputy leaders, the whole exercise looks very weak.
Local governments have no visa issuing rights and they do not have the right to sign agreements, so all they can really do is criticize the central government.
The blue eight have made it clear that they are in favor of urgent unification and they will end up in the same place as the KMT — spurned by the public.
The blue eight hide behind claims that they are working hard for the economy and for the tourism industry, but this has already been proven false.
ONE DRAGON
Early in former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) first term in office, he authorized someone to ask China to help his administration get over an economic hump.
One solution was to send more tourists to Taiwan, sell more Taiwanese products and encourage Chinese to invest in Taiwan.
The result was the harmful “one-dragon” service — the unified management of Chinese tour groups controlled by Chinese and Hong Kong companies that control the consumption of Chinese tourists in Taiwan. It did nothing to improve the Taiwanese economy.
SOLIDARITY
The requests submitted to Beijing by the blue eight are a copy of the requests Ma submitted during his presidency. They give China a political lifesaver that it can offer or withdraw at will and use to tie Taiwan’s hands, using the same tricks as a con artist to cause trouble for the Tsai administration.
As KMT mayors and county commissioners play political games, there is nothing stopping the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government from responding to the blue eight by increasing resources and improving the quality of the tourist experience in cities and counties run by DPP members.
This would perhaps teach them a lesson about solidarity and unity toward the outside world and about recklessly overstepping their bounds to help China divide Taiwan.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS