There has been much talk about the Western response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainians’ effective resistance and how the evolving situation would affect Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) calculations on launching an invasion of Taiwan.
However, a perspective that might have gotten buried in the flurry of reporting and analysis is the effect on ordinary Taiwanese, who have responded with messages of support and donations for Ukrainians. What do they think the situation means for their own safety? Will this affect the way they view political parties’ cross-strait policies?
Fear of a Chinese invasion could play into the hands of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), whose consistent position since at least 2008 has been to seek further engagement with Beijing, with acceptance of the so-called “1992 consensus” as a prerequisite.
In 2012, the party cautiously welcomed the prospect of the signing of a cross-strait peace agreement, first proposed by Xi’s predecessor, Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), although former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) insisted there was no timeline to do so.
The KMT promotes its pro-China policies and engagement with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as the best way to ensure cross-strait peace, or even peaceful unification, and portrays the dismissal of the the “1992 consensus” by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) as a basis for cross-strait talks as a serious impediment.
The past few years have seen the electorate largely reject the KMT’s stance. If the KMT wants to capitalize on fears of the CCP’s intentions, with many Taiwanese supporting Ukraine, it would have to tread carefully.
This dynamic played out in an exchange between Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) and KMT Legislator Lo Ming-tsai (羅明才) in the Legislative Yuan on Tuesday last week. Lo used the occasion of International Woman’s Day to segue into telephone calls he said he had received from many mothers and other women expressing their concerns that war could happen in Taiwan. He said that all they wanted was a safe environment to live in.
Su responded by criticizing the Kremlin for ordering the invasion, and noted Ukrainians’ bravery. Lo refused to be drawn into criticizing Russia, merely saying that he did not want war to come to Taiwan. Su pushed him on the subject, saying that he had yet to hear Lo criticize the aggressors. Lo stuck to his guns. Su painted the picture of how a cruel dictator attacked a peaceful country, slaughtering innocents, with no legitimate basis for the invasion apart from a delusional appeal to recapturing his nation’s former glory.
Su said that war came to Ukraine because it was forced upon it, and Ukrainians’ unified response and willingness to protect their nation was the reason that foreign governments and nationals had come to their aid. Lo kept to his line, saying that he did not know much about Russia, but that he wanted peace, not war, in Taiwan.
It is unclear whether Lo was toeing the official KMT line with his refusal to blame Russia, but his reluctance to be drawn away from his core point was illustrative of the narrative that the KMT wants to be at the forefront.
Su was talking about Russia and Ukraine, but he was drawing an explicit parallel to China and Taiwan, and how the blame for any invasion could only be placed at the feet of Xi and the CCP.
Su and Lo were representing their respective parties’ stances. Lo wanted to focus on the desirability of peace, but refused to allow talk of the aggressor to enter the debate.
Appeals to capitulation are not a good look for a political party.
China has successfully held its Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, with 53 of 55 countries from the African Union (AU) participating. The two countries that did not participate were Eswatini and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which have no diplomatic relations with China. Twenty-four leaders were reported to have participated. Despite African countries complaining about summit fatigue, with recent summits held with Russia, Italy, South Korea, the US and Indonesia, as well as Japan next month, they still turned up in large numbers in Beijing. China’s ability to attract most of the African leaders to a summit demonstrates that it is still being
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday was handcuffed and escorted by police to the Taipei Detention Center, after the Taipei District Court ordered that he be detained and held incommunicado for suspected corruption during his tenure as Taipei mayor. The ruling reversed an earlier decision by the same court on Monday last week that ordered Ko’s release without bail. That decision was appealed by prosecutors on Wednesday, leading the High Court to conclude that Ko had been “actively involved” in the alleged corruption and it ordered the district court to hold a second detention hearing. Video clips
RSS