While Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Vice President William Lai (賴清德) remains ahead in the polls and the candidates for the opposition parties — the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party — have yet to agree on a proposed “blue-white alliance,” anything could happen in the presidential race.
Whichever party wins in January next year, it must have a robust foreign policy, given the fraught geopolitical dynamics, both globally and regionally.
Opposition parties criticize the government’s foreign policy, but must take account of the geopolitical circumstances that have changed enormously in the past five or so years, and little has been a result of Taiwan’s actions.
The KMT must recognize that the international situation is very different from the one former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) knew when he left office eight years ago.
In this region alone, countries are realigning and reassessing priorities, including Japan, the two Koreas, China, Russia, the Philippines, Australia and India.
Should it win, the KMT would need to engage with international dynamics it did not consider before, let go of its skepticism of the US and Japan and open up to engagement with India, a major international player that is increasingly important in the region.
Japan has been a friend to Taiwan, especially since the administrations of the late Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe. Tokyo’s interest in maintaining peace in the Taiwan Strait is not born predominantly of friendship: It is due to hard geopolitical reality. Again, the changes in the dynamic for Japan are not because of Japan’s actions, but because of an increasingly aggressive China.
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida intends to double defense spending to 2 percent of GDP within five years and is actively looking to deepen defense cooperation with regional allies such as India, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines.
Kishida visited Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr in Manila on Friday to discuss tightening security ties and strengthening their trilateral partnership with the US.
Just as China is the main driving force behind Japan’s moves, India also finds itself performing a balancing act amid its relations with China and Taiwan.
Delhi stands to benefit greatly from the continuation of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, and as a member of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with partners Japan, the US and Australia, is expected to ensure Taiwan’s continued sovereignty.
India enjoys good relations and economic ties with Taiwan at the governmental and parliamentary levels, although this could be improved. At the civil society level, Indians have a favorable image of Taiwan.
Beijing’s aggressive moves and unfounded claims on Indian territory complicate Delhi’s relations with China and provide a military aspect to its interests in maintaining peace in the Taiwan Strait.
China would be much strengthened if it successfully invaded Taiwan, enabling it to focus its attention and resources on its Himalayan border with India.
Delhi is also concerned that if the People’s Liberation Army were unsuccessful in invading Taiwan, Beijing would seek to restore its military reputation by gaining control of Indian territory at the border instead.
India, then, could be a powerful, interested partner in helping Taiwan’s incoming administration deter Chinese aggression in the Taiwan Strait.
Delhi remains wary of provoking Beijing by strengthening ties with Taiwan. However, much could be done at the parliamentary level through mutual visits by Indian and Taiwanese lawmakers, and the new government in Taipei should be willing to actively encourage this.
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
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
The political order of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) first took shape in 1988. Then-vice president Lee succeeded former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) after he passed, and served out the remainder of his term in office. In 1990, Lee was elected president by the National Assembly, and in 1996, he won Taiwan’s first direct presidential election. Those two, six and four-year terms were an era-defining 12-year presidential tenure. Throughout those years, Lee served as helmsman for Taiwan’s transition from martial law and authoritarianism to democracy. This period came to be known as the “quiet revolution,” leaving a legacy containing light
Taiwan no longer wants to merely manufacture the chips that power artificial intelligence (AI). It aims to build the software, platforms and services that run on them. Ten major AI infrastructure projects, a national cloud computing center in Tainan, the sovereign language model Trustworthy AI Dialogue Engine, five targeted industry verticals — from precision medicine to smart agriculture — and the goal of ranking among the world’s top five in computing power by 2040: The roadmap from “Silicon Island” to “Smart Island” is drawn. The question is whether the western plains, where population, industry and farmland are concentrated, have the water and
RSS