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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers