The National Policy Foundation, sponsored by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), recently held a forum called “The Effect on Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Foreign Policy Toward Taiwan Following the Two Sessions.”
Chao Chun-shan (趙春山), a member of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) braintrust on cross-strait relations, used the forum to repeat KMT policy like a broken record, claiming that if put into office, the KMT would start “a new dialogue” with China.
He is naive to believe that reopening dialogue across the Taiwan Strait would revive the congenial relationship seen during Ma’s administration.
It would certainly not put an end to China’s air force incursions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone. Unless Chao is suffering from serious memory loss, he is deceiving the public, because Chinese warplanes have been conducting long distance training exercises since 2013.
Chao is aware that the US would continue suppressing China, a change in international relations direction from Ma’s presidency. At this critical juncture, if Taiwan becomes ambiguous in its attitude toward China, it risks becoming the thorn in the side of democratic allies. Those who lack realistic views of international politics think that dialogue is the answer to every problem.
If that is the case, then there would have been no wars throughout history. The most famous dialogue in history is nothing but the Melian Dialogue, a dramatization of the negotiations between the Athenians and the Melians before the siege. The two parties failed to reach a consensus after the dialogue, and the Athenians wiped out the Melians.
In East Asian history, the last ruler of the Southern Tang Dynasty, Li Yu (李煜), thought that if he could appease the Song forces, then there would be peace for his country. As the Song armies prepared to invade, Li immediately asked to talk. Zhao Kuangyin (趙匡胤), who later became the founder of the Song dynasty, replied: “No more of this talk. As there is only one kingdom, I could not allow another to share it with me.”
The same example can be seen in modern history. Former British prime minister Neville Chamberlain thought that he could achieve “peace for our time” by talking to Adolf Hitler. Despite receiving a rowdy homecoming from the crowd after signing the Munich Agreement, Chamberlain’s talk failed to keep Hitler from invading Poland the following year, which led to World War II.
Former US president Bill Clinton also thought that the US could achieve peace with North Korea through dialogue. Unfortunately, this opened a can of worms for the US, for North Korea has learned that the US would capitulate whenever it throws a tantrum, providing further chances to extort aid from Washington.
The KMT should know this better than anyone since the it has fallen for CCP schemes after multiple negotiations and peace talks. Former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) blamed the US for the loss of the “mainland” because Washington forced him to negotiate with the CCP. He would turn in his grave if he knew that droves of KMT members were now in favor of holding peace talks.
KMT icon and Republic of China (ROC) founder Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) once discussed the futility of talk.
“To rely on benevolence alone to influence the Europeans in Asia to relinquish the privileges they have acquired in China would be an impossible dream,” he said.
Ironically, after the end of World War II, Europe relinquished many privileges acquired through treaties, including the handover of Hong Kong. Recent crackdowns and changes have proved that it was China that renounced its “50 years unchanged” pledge.
While history has shown that the US and Europe have been reliable, it is downright impossible and naive to negotiate with an autocratic country with a record of breaking promises.
Prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US and Europe were making no progress with Russia. French President Emmanuel Macron thought that he could dissuade Russian President Vladimir Putin with his silver tongue. The joke was on Macron when Putin turned on him and ordered the invasion.
While Macron only suffered a bruised ego, Taiwan could easily lose its sovereignty and people.
In response to Chao’s preposterous stance, and to Ma — a former president who possesses the nation’s highest secrets and is about to visit China — Taiwanese should slam them for their quasi-treason and refrain from being deceived by these “pro-dialogue” advocates.
Tommy Lin is director of Wu Fu Eye Clinic and president of the Formosa Republican Association.
Translated by Rita Wang
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS