Former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) on Saturday expounded on her concept of replacing “unification” with China with “integration.”
Lu does not she think the idea would be welcomed in its current form; rather, she wants to elicit discussion on a third way to break the current unification/independence impasse, especially given heightened concerns over China attacking Taiwan in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
She has apparently formulated her ideas around the number “three.”
First, she envisions cross-strait relations developing in three stages: having Beijing lay to rest the idea of unification of “one China” (一個中國); next replacing this with the “integration” of a more abstract “one China” (一個中華) entity — the difference in the final Chinese character is key, as it implies ethnicity rather than a state or nation — along the lines of the EU or ASEAN; and finally moving on to forming a “Chinese federation” (中華邦聯) that would include Singapore.
Including Singapore betrays a lack of understanding of that nation’s long-standing policy of careful calibration of ethnic balance: Singapore would have great reservations about joining a “Chinese nation” alliance.
Second, she would like to see a “northeast Asian golden triangle” comprising Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, as well as the formation of a “Pacific Democracies Alliance” that would include the aforementioned grouping, plus the US and Canada on the other side of the Pacific. She would also like to have these two alliances balance each other, as well as the US-China relationship and the cross-strait relationship.
Lu has also put forward her “three wars” concept (三戰說) of “maintaining peace, shunning war, avoiding bloodshed” — the same idea said in three different ways — or the idea of “preparing for war” (備戰), which includes facing up to war (面對戰爭), recognizing what war is (認識戰爭) and avoiding war (避免戰爭).
A response can also come from three directions.
First, taken at face value, an idea that could genuinely solve the current impasse and avoid war should be seen as a desirable addition to the debate. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Taiwanese have seen in Ukraine how naive the idea of a rapid conclusion to any potential invasion of Taiwan is, and that it would be brutal, protracted and costly in terms of human life and devastating economically.
Lu intends to reduce tensions with her idea of offering an alternative road map to Beijing — it could at the very least buy more time for other options to be explored — and to develop her suggested network of balancing alliances that would also strengthen Taiwan’s voice internationally in a way that is uniquely Asian and not overly reliant on the US.
Second is the political perspective. Lu has long been associated with the Democratic Progressive Party, but her talk of rapprochement with the CCP and jabs at “provocation” are closer to the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) approach and its suspicions of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) strategic closeness to the US. It also mirrors Russian President Vladimir Putin’s accusations that the US and NATO forced his hand in invading Ukraine.
Third is the biggest flaw in her thinking. Her veiled accusations of provocation completely ignore the role of the CCP and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), not just in being the aggressor, but also in believing that either would agree to her ideas or be trusted to honor them in the future.
Even if Beijing signaled provisional interest in the idea, the CCP is notorious for its unreliability and for gradually chipping away at agreed terms to end up with what it wanted in the first place.
Lu is right to want to avoid war, but astonishingly naive in her proposed solution because of her apparent misunderstanding of what the CCP wants of Taiwan.
Rapprochement might buy time, but as a solution to secure long-term peace or protect Taiwan’s sovereignty, independence or identity, it is a dead end.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS