Since Beijing passed the "Anti-Secession" Law last month, the cross-strait mood has become increasingly bizarre. Despite repeated warnings from the government, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
By ignoring the government, Lien has compelled President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to consider cooperating with the People First Party (PFP) and endorse a meeting between Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and PFP Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) early next month.
This strategy suggests Chen is attempting to lift Soong's status to undermine Lien and delegitimize anything he might achieve in Beijing.
So, even as two of the nation's most senior politicians prepare to cross the Strait, disputes between political parties are deteriorating into a sharper conflict.
The political parties involved have their own agendas, and plenty of dirty tricks have been used to get the upper hand.
But the KMT's decision to join forces with Beijing to derail DPP policy is both arrogant and short-sighted. Chen cannot afford to sit back and do nothing.
However, the tacit understanding between the DPP and the PFP to undermine Lien is not necessarily a good thing. Their actions may only serve to push Lien further into China's embrace, and will do nothing to make the KMT respect Taiwan or understand the need to oppose the Chinese Communist Party.
We should also bear in mind that the PFP is in total agreement with the KMT in regard to unification. How will Chen be able to face the people if Soong, in his talks in Beijing, says things that diverge from DPP policy?
In dealing with matters relating to national development and security such as cross-strait policies, it is inappropriate for the government to use short-term tactics to achieve political goals. It is far more important to build a consensus among the major parties, which is the reason why this newspaper has rebuked Lien so harshly for going it alone.
The major political parties must understand the importance of consensus-based action, otherwise it will be the Taiwanese people who will pay a heavy price for endless political squabbling.
Before Lien and Soong visit Beijing, it is crucial that the leaders of the three main parties hold a summit on national affairs.
Only if some level of consensus is reached will the KMT and PFP chairmen be able to engage in substantive negotiations with Beijing.
Otherwise, if cross-strait talks take place against a background of vicious inter-party strife, they will only lead to further political division and worsening confrontation.
To ensure that the Taiwanese people emerge as victors from these talks, the two party chairmen should demand legislators push through the long-delayed arms-procurement bill before arriving in China. We all know that peace is built on security, so Taiwan should first secure its position before entering into talks with China. Only then will the talks hold any meaning.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS