Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu’s (朱立倫) performance in an interview with German media outlet Deutsche Welle (DW) published on Tuesday has been described as “disastrous” by several Chinese-language news media and political pundits in Taiwan.
The interview was meant to discuss the KMT’s view of cross-strait relations and clarify the purpose of KMT Vice Chairman Andrew Hsia’s (夏立言) controversial visit to China last month while China was conducting live-fire military exercises around Taiwan.
Chu, who ran for president in 2016, surprised people by dodging questions, denying factual statements, referencing intangible concepts and abruptly ending the interview by saying: “Thank you for your interview, the time is up.”
In the interview, Chu claimed that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government refuses to communicate with China, placing Taiwan in a dangerous position, while the KMT’s goal is to maintain the “status quo” — the preference of the majority of Taiwanese — by “maintaining a channel of dialogue between Taiwan and China” to avoid war.
However, Chu began dodging questions when he was asked how the KMT plans to communicate with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) to avoid war, and how it could convey polls that show that less than 7 percent of Taiwanese want “unification” with China, as it would be against Xi’s will to sustain the cross-strait “status quo.”
Chu insisted that the KMT could achieve its goal of maintaining the “status quo” by communicating with China, as the KMT-led administrations had done for many years since 1987, brushing off the fact that the Chinese government has changed.
The peak of Chu’s “disastrous” interview was when the interviewer cited a June poll by the National Chengchi University Election Study Center, which showed that only 14 percent of Taiwanese identify with the KMT. Chu rejected the poll, calling it “wrong information” and saying that “our party will win the election,” which is the best poll.
It is unclear whether Chu was unprepared, or whether he intentionally gave ambiguous answers to avoid revealing the paradoxical reality of his party’s strategy, possibly out of fear of upsetting China or Taiwan. Yet it is regrettable that he could not clearly explain the KMT’s cross-strait perspective.
Chu failed to define the “status quo” that the KMT is trying to preserve. He could not explain whether the “status quo” is dynamic, or what the KMT could do if China tries to change it. This will not persuade people to trust the KMT to represent them in negotiations with China without sacrificing their interests — whether that be the protection of a democratic way of life or economic interests.
Although Taiwan and the global community have observed China’s attempt to undermine the “status quo,” including its rapid military expansion, its incursions over the Taiwan Strait median line and its economic threats against Taiwan, Chu downplayed China’s responsibility by blaming the DPP, rhetoric also used by Beijing.
In contrast, Minister of Foreign Affairs Joseph Wu (吳釗燮), in an interview DW published last week, clearly stated the DPP-led government’s commitment to maintaining the “status quo” — which he defined as both sides “having no jurisdiction over each other,” and that “Taiwan is already a democracy” in which the people have a say over its future. He explained its strategy for facing China’s escalating threat to Taiwan and the global community.
If Chu and the KMT cannot clearly communicate the party’s understanding of the “status quo” and its ability to protect it, but continues to paint a vague, escapist picture of a seemingly peaceful “status quo” achieved by the KMT in the past as its vision for the future, it is no wonder the party is seeing record-low party identification.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS