Vice President William Lai (賴清德), the Democratic Progressive Party’s presidential candidate, on Monday last week told a forum in Yilan County that next year’s election is a choice between Zhongnanhai — the corridors of power in Beijing — and the White House.
“If a Taiwanese president can enter the White House, we will have achieved the political objective that we have been pursuing,” he said.
Asked about Lai’s remarks, Taiwan People’s Party Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) said: “We are vying to be the president of Taiwan, not a US state governor. Neither are we applying to be a foreign domestic helper in the White House.”
After his comment drew a backlash, Ko said that even though the US is an important ally, the president of Taiwan must remain autonomous, reiterating his policy of maintaining equidistant relations with Washington and Beijing. He later added on Twitter that Lai’s stated political objective “wasn’t enough,” meaning that Taipei should have good relations with every member of the international community.
As always happens in politics, and especially during major election campaigns, candidates’ words are misunderstood — either genuinely or intentionally — or distorted, if not by the candidates themselves, then by political commentators, the media or members of the public. Suffice it to say that both candidates have legitimate points, but it is important to cut through the political haze and the candidates’ respective agendas.
Ko’s position has legitimate value, which is why he believes the election should not be a choice between Washington and Beijing. He is also correct that ideally, the president of Taiwan should not value the relationship with the US over the exclusion of those with other countries.
This is, of course, not what Lai meant. If Taiwan’s president can be welcomed into the White House — without drawing an extremely negative reaction from Beijing — it would show that the nation has finally been officially recognized as part of the international community.
Indeed, if the US led on this, the governments of other countries would surely follow.
Ko also neglected to mention that the reason Lai would have to choose between Zhongnanhai and the White House is that the former would almost certainly refuse to deal with him, as it has with President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) since 2016. A less charitable interpretation of Ko’s omissions and apparent misreading of Lai’s point is that he is simply appealing to US skeptics to attract more pro-blue camp voters by criticizing his political rival.
Tsai has appointed Lai to attend the Aug. 15 inauguration of Paraguayan president-elect Santiago Pena. The vice president is to transit through the US on his way to Asuncion. Lai would not be visiting the White House, nor is he expected to meet any high-ranking US officials. Furthermore, it is customary for Taiwanese officials to travel through the US when visiting allies in South or Central America.
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Mao Ning (毛寧) said that Beijing has already lodged a complaint with the US, objecting to its “connivance” with “Taiwanese separatists” by allowing Lai’s stopover.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday said that the stopover is “very routine” and that Beijing should not use it as a pretext for initiating provocative actions.
All of Taiwan’s presidential candidates should welcome a US official as senior as Blinken speaking up for the vice president and pushing back against Beijing’s intimidation. They should also support Lai on his mission of goodwill to a diplomatic ally, regardless of whether it is in their political interest during this campaign. It is certainly in the national interest.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS