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.
With each passing day, the threat of a People’s Republic of China (PRC) assault on Taiwan grows. Whatever one’s view about the history, there is essentially no question that a PRC conquest of Taiwan would mark the end of the autonomy and freedom enjoyed by the island’s 23 million people. Simply put, the PRC threat to Taiwan is genuinely existential for a free, democratic and autonomous Taiwan. Yet one might not know it from looking at Taiwan. For an island facing a threat so acute, lethal and imminent, Taiwan is showing an alarming lack of urgency in dramatically strengthening its defenses.
As India’s six-week-long general election grinds past the halfway mark, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s messaging has shifted from confident to shrill. After the first couple of phases of polling showed a 3 percentage point drop in turnout, Modi and his party leaders have largely stopped promoting their accomplishments of the past 10 years — or, for that matter, the “Modi guarantees” offered in the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) manifesto for the next five. Instead, making the majority Hindu population fear and loathe Muslims seems to be the BJP’s preferred talking point. Modi went on the offensive in an April 21
The people of Taiwan recently received confirmation of the strength of American support for their security. Of four foreign aid bills that Congress passed and President Biden signed in April, the bill legislating additional support for Taiwan garnered the most votes. Three hundred eighty-five members of the House of Representatives voted to provide foreign military financing to Taiwan versus only 34 against. More members of Congress voted to support Taiwan than Ukraine, Israel, or banning TikTok. There was scant debate over whether the United States should provide greater support for Taiwan. It was understood and broadly accepted that doing so
I still remember the first time I heard about the possibility of an invasion by China. I was six years old. I thought war was coming and hid in my bed, scared. After 18 years, the invasion news tastes like a sandwich I eat every morning. As a Gen Z Taiwanese student who has witnessed China’s harassment for more than 20 years, I want to share my opinion on China. Every generation goes through different events. I have seen not only the norms of China’s constant presence, but also the Sunflower movement, wars and people fighting over peace or equality,