It was a weekend of eminent speechmaking, with back-to-back addresses by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). While neither strayed far from their usual scripts, the juxtaposed talks offer a glimpse into cross-strait strategy in the coming months, promising subtle politicking rather than bombastic displays.
The speeches were delivered against a backdrop more fraught than usual, given China’s deployment of more than 150 aircraft into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ) this month, a record number that includes a single maneuver involving 52 aircraft.
Although much has been made in international media of Xi’s emphasis on “peaceful reunification” in his speech on Saturday, he still managed to wedge in a threat that Taiwanese independence advocates would “come to no good end,” even if he stopped short of vowing to “smash” them as he did in July. Still, Tsai’s speech the day after was met with three more Chinese planes entering Taiwan’s ADIZ. Alarmist coverage aside, another way to read Xi’s address is as an overture to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) as it welcomes new leadership and gears up for a comeback in local elections next year.
There is good historical reason for the timing of the speeches around Double Ten, celebrated by the Republic of China (ROC) as its national day and by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the anniversary of the Xinhai Revolution that overthrew the Qing Dynasty, with both sharing a reverence for Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙). It is exactly this kind of historical connection that the KMT clings to as an extension of cross-strait goodwill, and the party did not fail to remind the public of this rare point of consensus.
In his Double Ten National Day remarks, new KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reiterated that “both sides of the Strait should uphold this spirit” represented by Sun, and that “seeking common ground while retaining differences of opinion” is the basis of cross-strait relations. This sentiment reflected Xi’s speech, which emphasized Sun’s vision of “national rejuvenation” and framed Taiwanese independence as its greatest obstacle. Xi’s added mention of the so-called “1992 consensus” also brought to mind Chu’s response to Xi’s letter of congratulations last month, which cited the “1992 consensus” and opposition to independence as the basis of cross-strait relations, adding to the din in their echo chamber.
For a floundering party whose only appeal to voters is better Chinese relations, this is a lifeline it will be happy to accept. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) knows this and will continue tweaking its dialogue to make it appear as though the two are on the same page, even while it tries to turn to the next chapter.
On the other hand, Tsai in her speech spent a significant amount of time appealing for political cooperation, even calling out the opposition by name. She is acutely aware that lacking a unified voice is dangerous, especially for a nation that must constantly justify its existence, and letting Beijing define the narrative is a death sentence.
To counter the CCP-KMT echo chamber, Tsai alternatively proposed four commitments on which to base a national consensus: a free and democratic constitutional system; that the ROC and the PRC should not be subordinate to each other; resisting annexation or encroachment upon Taiwan’s sovereignty; and that the future of Taiwan must be decided in accordance with the will of Taiwanese.
Still, her overtures are sure to fall on deaf ears. Hours after her speech, the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party were quick to pounce on the Democratic Progressive Party for supposedly locking them out of the room, crying that “the crisis of governance begins when there is no voice of opposition.”
Political infighting only creates fissures that Beijing can and will exploit. While disagreements are a necessary part of democracy, they must grow from a solid foundation. Taiwan’s political parties would do well to agree on one before the ground shifts beneath their feet.
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