Amid election interference by China, former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) on Saturday last week was elected as the party’s new chairwoman. After her victory, Cheng expressed her commitment to achieving complete governance, cross-strait peace and shared prosperity by 2028.
Compared with Eric Chu (朱立倫), who is chairman until the end of this month, Cheng — who loudly proclaims herself Chinese — is even more pro-China. If, under her leadership, the KMT continues to firmly uphold the so-called “1992 consensus” and the “one China” principle, does Taiwan risk being further trapped within the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China” framework and ultimately swallowed by China — or, as the CCP calls it, “reunification”?
In the past few years, China has expanded its military presence in the South China and East China seas. To maintain the balance of power in the western Pacific, the US has bolstered its alliance with Japan and extended the scope of its defense to include Taiwan, incorporating the nation into its Indo-Pacific strategic framework to counter China. Amid an international environment defined by the US-China strategic competition, if the KMT were to return to power and promote the “1992 consensus” — a policy that so strongly favors Beijing — how could it possibly win the trust and assistance of the US? Without US military support, how could the Republic of China (ROC) defend itself?
After taking office on Nov. 1, could Cheng’s pro-peace, pro-China slogan really deter a Chinese invasion and guarantee cross-strait peace and shared prosperity? Has she forgotten the bitter lesson the KMT learned after World War II, when it extended an olive branch to the CCP that only served to accelerate China’s downfall?
Located along the first island chain, Taiwan holds a position central to the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy. It is a critical gateway for China’s entrance into the East and South China seas and the expansion of its maritime power. If China were to seize Taiwan’s critical, geopolitically strategic position, its power would significantly increase, posing a direct threat to US hegemony.
Taiwan controls two major maritime routes linking Northeast Asia to the South China Sea — both vital energy supply lines and major shipping routes to Europe and Africa. They are also lifelines for Japan’s maritime trade.
Additionally, Taiwan’s world-leading high-tech industry supplies about 90 percent of the advanced, high-quality and affordable semiconductors used by the US and other nations. China knows that without Taiwan, democratic nations would struggle to function.
Peace is dependent upon strength. In the past few years, Taiwan has increased its national defense budget, purchased new weapons, extended compulsory military service to one year and expanded its armed forces to more than 260,000 personnel. Coupled with the powerful deterrent force posed by the coalition of the US, the EU, Australia, Japan and the Philippines in the Indo-Pacific region, these measures have discouraged the CCP from recklessly invading Taiwan.
However, if the KMT returns to power, it would likely scale back on defense and distance Taiwan from democratic alliances, providing the CCP with an opening to seize Taiwan, exploit its strategic location and semiconductor supply chain, and directly challenge the US — and Taiwanese would be dragged into the confrontation.
Taiwanese are all in the same boat. After taking office, does Cheng plan to lean heavily toward China — seeking peace with Beijing, distancing Taiwan from the US and drastically cutting the national defense budget?
Michael Lin is a retired diplomat formerly posted in the US.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
RSS