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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS