Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in August 2020 accused the administration of President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of leading Taiwan into a perilous situation as it allegedly pursued a foreign policy that leans heavily toward the US and antagonizes China.
At a forum organized by the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation, titled “A Nation Unsafe,” Ma also criticized Tsai for not acknowledging the so-called “1992 consensus,” which he said had eliminated the basis of mutual trust between Taipei and Beijing.
This was a complete inversion of the truth. In reality, it is China that has for the past decade been flexing its muscles in the Asia-Pacific region, militarizing the South and East China seas, and using “wolf warrior” diplomats to harass and coerce neighboring nations, including Taiwan.
During the past three decades, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has jettisoned its anti-communist stance and pivoted toward China, shunning its traditional ally, the US. The highly ideological nationalist wing of the party has for many years agitated for “rapid unification” with China, while more moderate party members have tried to have their cake and eat it: playing Washington off against Beijing while riding the gravy train of China’s booming economy.
However, as the Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) said: “You cannot sup on fish and bear’s paw at the same time” — sometimes you have to make a choice between two courses of action.
There are tentative signs — merely the slenderest of green shoots at this stage — that the KMT could be in the foothills of a major foreign policy shift: pivoting away from China and back toward the US.
The first sign was the party’s announcement last month that it would reopen a liaison office in Washington, which was closed by Ma after he took office. At a news conference, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) vowed to pursue a pragmatic foreign policy and re-engage with Washington.
Another sign came from across the Taiwan Strait.
The state-run People’s Political Consultative Daily on Saturday labeled KMT legislators Lin Wei-chou (林為洲) and Charles Chen (陳以信) “secret Taiwanese independence advocates.” While Beijing habitually denounces Democratic Progressive Party politicians, targeting KMT legislators in this way is unprecedented.
Chen told reporters that the path forward for the KMT involves growing closer to the US while being more amicable with China, and called for a more balanced outreach to both sides.
One theory is that Beijing launched the attack in an attempt to sow division within the KMT and scupper the party’s pivot to Washington.
The latest indication that the KMT could be undergoing a metamorphosis is a security forum held by the KMT-affiliated National Policy Foundation, which began on Wednesday.
The general tone at the forum was positive, consensual and avoided scaremongering or hyping up the threat from China. Chi Yue-yi (亓樂義), an expert on China’s military, is a case in point. Chi said that China is unlikely to attain the military capability to launch an all-out invasion of Taiwan for at least 10 years, but added that there is a high risk that it might initiate limited “gray zone” conflicts to force Taipei to the negotiating table. This is a more optimistic timeframe than recent assessments made by the Pentagon.
It is too early to tell whether the KMT’s US pivot is more than a cosmetic change, and voters should remain skeptical. The ball is in the KMT’s court to prove whether it can meaningfully rebalance its foreign policy and distance itself from Beijing.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS