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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS