Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) on Tuesday departed on a three-day trip to Shanghai to attend the Shanghai-Taipei Twin-City Forum.
“The Republic of China is a democratic country, so there will be contrasting opinions toward any important policy decision ... so we are very grateful and will value it,” Chiang told reporters in Taipei.
Chiang is correct: the Republic of China (ROC) is a democracy, but the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is not. The PRC does not recognize ROC sovereignty, and it does not respect the perspectives, opinions or authority of the ROC’s politicians.
Chiang’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has repeatedly espoused adherence to a “one China” policy and the so-called “1992 consensus,” presenting this as a way to foster good cross-strait relations. However, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has already rejected the KMT’s understanding of those concepts, denying the idea of “one China with different interpretations.” From Beijing’s perspective, there is only “one China,” that China is the PRC, and Taiwan will inevitably be unified with it.
Xi has said that “peaceful unification” is preferred, but he has ordered the People’s Liberation Army to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Beijing has expressed its intention of applying to Taiwan a version of its “one country, two systems” formula, which is used in Hong Kong and Macau.
Hong Kong and Macau have already lost all semblance of autonomy promised to them under that formula, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press and other freedoms, and Taiwan’s major political parties have already rejected the formula outright.
Given this, what could Chiang or any other Taiwanese politician hope to achieve by engaging China?
“Cross-strait relations are complicated and cannot be simplified to a few sentences, so there must be a mechanism for dialogue,” Chiang said, adding that action is needed to resolve friction.
That is a truly interesting take, as any friction is entirely the PRC’s fault. The ROC does not threaten the PRC, the ROC does not attempt to limit PRC participation in international organizations, the ROC does not arbitrarily impose import bans on Chinese goods, and the ROC does not engage in provocative military drills near PRC territory. Those are all things that the PRC does to the ROC.
It is futile for Taiwan’s politicians to seek Beijing’s fair treatment of Taiwan by engaging the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The PRC is an enemy and existential threat to the ROC, and Beijing is not interested in dialogue unless it leads to Taiwan’s capitulation and the abandonment of its sovereignty.
If anything, Taiwanese politicians visiting the PRC should be subject to intense scrutiny, as Beijing would undoubtedly use the opportunity to interfere with Taiwan’s domestic politics or its elections.
Taiwan Republic Office director Chilly Chen (陳峻涵) on Tuesday was at Taipei International Airport (Songshan airport) holding a sign that read: “The Twin-City Forum is the model for the ‘united front’ campaign,” and urged Chiang not to become a “chess piece” in China’s “united front” tactics toward Taiwan.
Whether Chiang is susceptible to manipulation is unknown, but the CCP only wants dialogue with Taiwanese politicians who further CCP aims — or those whom the CCP believes would be malleable.
If Xi and the CCP were amenable to real dialogue with Taiwan on an equal footing, why do they refuse to talk with Taiwan’s democratically elected Democratic Progressive Party? President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has always said she is open to dialogue.
There is no benefit from Taiwanese politicians visiting China, and such visits should be highly discouraged — if not prohibited entirely by legislative amendment. Acknowledgment of ROC sovereignty should be a prerequisite for any talks with the CCP.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS