Last week the local Chinese-language media portrayed Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
A better way to depict the situation is this: only after Lien and the KMT backed down from their prior position about the purpose and nature of the trip have both the US and Taiwan governments decided to adopt a less skeptical, wait-and-see attitude.
On Tuesday, Randall Schriver, the US deputy assistant secretary of state in charge of China and Taiwan issues told reporters that "the leaders in Beijing will ultimately have to talk to the elected leaders in Taiwan and the government that is in power."
If Beijing is only willing to speak with opposition leaders such as Lien and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), the already complicated cross-strait relationship will only become more complicated. So, although Schriver did not criticize Lien and Soong, it isn't hard to detect some degree of skepticism. The KMT is obviously aware of this.
A meeting between Lien and American Institute in Taiwan Director Douglas Paal took place the day after Schriver's comments. KMT spokesman Chang Jung-kung (
It is generally believed that both Lien and Soong communicated to the US through various channels that during their trips to China they will not sign any agreement with Beijing and will act in accordance with their status as opposition leaders. Chang's remarks seem to confirm this general belief.
It makes sense then, that US State Department spokesperson Adam Ereli said on Wednesday in Washington that "Recent travels to China by Taiwanese individuals are positive steps ... we, I think, look favorably on and welcome steps in that direction."
At the same time, the Presidential Office has indicated that it is treating the visits by Lien and Soong as purely private in nature and without any official status. From that standpoint, the Presidential Office has indicated support for Lien and Soong's trips. The government's change in posture obviously had much to do with the promises conveyed by Lien and Soong -- either through the US or other channels -- to not overstep their bounds.
The attitude of the Taiwan and US governments can be interpreted as follows: If you must go, then so long as you do not do anything illegal, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
However, that attitude is way too tolerant of Lien and Soong. It is true that if they go in private capacities and aren't breaking any laws, there is no way to stop them. After all, many Taiwanese citizens travel across the Taiwan Strait on a regular basis.
But Lien and Soong are also leaders of political parties. Voters have cast ballots for their parties in freely-held elections, and in that sense they are politically accountable to the people of Taiwan. Their trips have helped ease international pressure on China for its enactment of the "Anti-Secession" Law and diverted the Taiwanese public's attention. For that, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt from anyone.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
RSS