Congratulations must be given to China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Minister Liu Jieyi (劉結一), who landed a real coup on his first public appearance in the job, holding a high-profile meeting with New Taipei City Mayor Eric Chu (朱立倫) on Monday. Beijing will be delighted.
Liu maintained China’s policy of sidestepping the democratically elected government of Taiwan in favor of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT); have Chu, representing the KMT, reaffirm his party’s commitment to the so-called “1992 consensus;” and further tout Beijing’s unilateral initiatives such as the “31 incentives” targeting Taiwanese.
The question is, to what degree was the KMT complicit in this public relations exercise?
Chu insists his meeting with Liu was completely legal, as his delegation to Shanghai was city-level, not national, and all required documentation was submitted to the Taiwanese authorities in good time.
However, questions remain on this point, with Premier William Lai (賴清德) saying that the Mainland Affairs Council would look into whether authorities were provided with the required documents.
Legality aside, there are also concerns about how this meeting was perceived, how easily it was contrived and exploited by Beijing, and what it says about the KMT’s intentions, method and continued sense of entitlement, a hangover from the days of party-state rule.
Chu might have come away thinking the soundbites he conveyed during the meeting showed the KMT in a good light. He managed to speak of how his city government was trying to secure benefits for its residents, fighting for Taiwanese and for cross-strait peace.
Back in Taiwan, he suggested these were values that the council should approve of.
He also, apparently, got across the idea of the “1992 consensus” being merely a starting point for discussions ensuring cross-strait peace, and how the KMT was committed to the principle of “one China, different interpretations.”
However, few in China would know that “different interpretations” was omitted in official Chinese media reports.
Chu must have known it would be. Liu certainly would have.
According to reports, when Chu mentioned the “1992 consensus,” Liu perked up and nodded affirmation; when Chu spoke of the two sides having different ideas as to the exact nature of that consensus, Liu’s expression went blank and he stared off into space.
Liu spoke of how the “1992 consensus” reflects the “one China” principle and opposes Taiwanese independence schemes in any form, and said that China’s policy toward Taiwan is to continue to uphold the “two sides of the Strait, one family” ideology.
While the exchange between the two men was covered by the media, the delegations continued on to lunch, where the media contingent was asked to leave after 90 minutes. The lunch went on for some time afterwards. Who knows what was discussed?
It is difficult to believe that Chu met Liu without the approval of the KMT leadership. The KMT’s stance on engagement with China, and the issue of unification, is well known. It has also been roundly rejected by the Taiwanese electorate.
Was the KMT putting its own interests before the interests of the nation by allowing Chu to participate in this PR exercise orchestrated by Beijing?
Perhaps former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) put it best at a ceremony for the DPP’s New Taipei City councilors on Tuesday.
Referring Liu’s balding pate and his own, Su said: “You do not have to go that far to shake hands with a baldy. There is one right here.”
It was a nice reminder that the KMT and DPP belong to the same nation and should be working together in the interests of that nation.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS