The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is deeply mired in internal discord and is inconsistent on national policies. All it can do is to hold high the so-called “peace” banner — but without any substantive idea about what peace really is, or how to achieve it. It contents itself with fighting those who offer a different vision, saying that a vote for Vice President William Lai (賴清德) — the Democratic Progressive Party’s presidential candidate who has described himself as a “pragmatic worker for Taiwan’s independence” — would be tantamount to seeking war. This is a pure, cynical manipulation of the facts for the sake of elections.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine offers Taiwanese a glimpse into how voting in the presidential election could increase or decrease the probability of war.
With the benefit of hindsight, the world knows that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has stepped up to the plate in his robust defense of Ukraine. However, during the 2019 Ukrainian presidential campaign, few outside of Ukraine knew Zelenskiy, only that he was running against an incumbent — Petro Poroshenko, a Ukrainian nationalist against Russia. Zelenskiy ended up defeating Poroshenko.
Poroshenko was defeated because of his poor performance in office, which was a domestic issue. The result of the election was simply the Ukrainians expressing their desire for political reform through the ballot box. Nevertheless, it inadvertently sent the wrong message to Russia.
When Russian President Vladimir Putin saw the anti-Russia Poroshenko lose the election to Zelenskiy, who grew up speaking Russian, he misread it as meaning Zelenskiy would be pro-Russia. Putin interpreted the election results as Ukrainians’ desire to identify with Russia, and that they would welcome a Russian invasion.
Putin believed that Moscow would face little resistance when it invaded Ukraine, allowing it to seize the country before the West intervenes. The risk of failure appeared to be very low.
Europe and the US got it wrong, too. At the beginning of the war, Germany believed that Ukraine would lose, and even hoped that this would happen quickly, so the war would end. The US offered to evacuate Zelenskiy from Kyiv, which showed that Washington also believed Ukraine would not be able to protect the capital. Zelenskiy refused, saying that Ukraine needed military support, not an airplane seat. He stayed in Ukraine, which under his leadership has frustrated the Russian army in numerous confrontations, and Ukraine remains undefeated.
If Putin had known that Ukraine would be so determined to resist an invasion, he would not have launched the war. Zelenskiy’s election sent out the wrong message to Putin, and although Zelenskiy was not to blame, it was the key reason behind the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war.
If Taiwanese hope to cast a vote to prevent war, they should have a clear idea about whom to vote for — that is, the candidate whose victory would convey the correct message to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The outcome of the election should let Xi know that Taiwanese are determined to resist China and are prepared for war. If Xi is reckless and gives the order for war, China would be dragged into a quagmire, just as Putin has been. This should give him pause for thought.
If the result of the presidential election gives Xi reason to believe that Taiwanese are too timid to fight, or even welcome annexation by China, it would be very bad for Taiwan. Xi might be given cause to believe that invading Taiwan would be very easy, and that the People’s Liberation Army would not encounter any resistance, and would even be welcomed, allowing it to seize Taiwan before the US has had a chance to intervene.
Only by voting for the candidate that China dislikes the most can the message “Taiwanese will resist to the end” be truly conveyed to Xi, and deter him from provoking war. If Taiwanese are terrified of the prospect of war, it is clear whom they should vote for.
Tommy Lin is director of Wu Fu Eye Clinic and president of the Formosa Republican Association.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
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