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.
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