The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Sept. 4 held a televised debate between candidates for its chairperson election.
The four candidates for the vote, to be held on Saturday next week, represent a wasted opportunity for the KMT, which continues to be out of touch with public opinion on key issues, particularly on the nation’s sovereignty and the identity of Taiwanese.
During the debate, the four candidates emphasized relations with China, with former Changhua County commissioner Cho Po-yuan (卓伯源) claiming that he would invite Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) to visit Taiwan and hold a cross-strait political summit, assuming the party wins the presidency in 2024.
Chinese military threats toward Taiwan have over the past year increased to such a degree that they have become the focus of international policy discussions in Japan, the US, Australia and throughout western Europe.
The KMT could not have picked a worse time to propose friendliness toward China. If the party has the delusion that a majority of Taiwanese would welcome such a policy, it needs look no further than a Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation survey on June 24, which showed that public support for the KMT had declined to 18.4 percent, despite support for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) reaching a five-year low of 22.6 percent.
There are two possible reasons for the decline in KMT support: the party’s continued emphasis on the so-called “1992 consensus” and its opportunistic criticism of the DPP for criticism’s sake, even when facts negate its claims.
For example, when Medigen Vaccine Biologics Co’s domestically developed COVID-19 vaccine was given emergency use authorization, the KMT claimed that the government was using the public as “guinea pigs” to test an “unsafe” vaccine that had only completed phase 2 clinical trials.
However, according to WHO standards, the safety of a vaccine is determined during phase 2 trials, while its efficacy is determined during phase 3 trials.
The KMT has also made dubious claims about the levels of residue of the feed additive ractopamine in meat products imported from the US, despite the Ministry of Health and Welfare having imposed limits.
However, by far the biggest issue of contention is the KMT’s insistence on Taiwanese being “Chinese” and that Taiwan must remain friendly toward the Chinese Communist Party.
During the debate, Sun Yat-sen School president Chang Ya-chung (張亞中), another candidate, said that if elected, he would seek a peace treaty with Beijing, should the KMT win the presidency.
Such a promise smacks of the delusional assumption that China sees Taiwan as an equal belligerent in an ongoing war, which could not be further from the truth. Beijing sees Taiwan as a breakaway province that it threatens to forcibly annex. A “peace treaty” could only mean Taiwan’s capitulation.
This is the KMT’s core problem — its fundamental inability to detach itself from China, despite majority public opinion. In a survey conducted by the Taiwan Thinktank on Dec. 11 last year, 84.9 percent of respondents identified as Taiwanese, and only 8.7 percent said they were Chinese. The KMT chairperson candidates might win over hardline supporters with their cross-strait rhetoric, but they will not appeal to the general public — which is what they must do to win in 2024.
If the KMT is to ever win the presidency or at least be a viable opposition party, it must rethink its views on China. It might not like the idea of renaming the nation “Taiwan,” but even if the Republic of China were again to be recognized by a majority of nations, it would not hold any more territory than what is currently administered from Taipei.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath