The supposed climax of People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong's (
So far, it is hard to see any constructive difference between Soong's and Lien's trips. In fact, judging from the reception they received and their travel itineraries, it is obvious that Beijing made painstaking efforts to offer them "non-discriminatory" and "equal" treatment. Soong's trip is almost an exactly replica of the one Lien undertook before him.
As for conducting substantive talks with Chinese officials, nothing they said had not been uttered before. At the core of all their speeches is still the "one China" principle and the so-called "1992 consensus," under which this principle is supposedly recognized. In other words, the fundamental roadblock preventing any progress in the cross-strait relationship remains.
As for Soong's performance, he was under severe public pressure to advocate the interests and speak the mind of the Taiwanese people, and eager to outdo Lien (which wouldn't be hard at all), Soong did make some effort to touch on the sentiments of the people of Taiwan, although he made no mention of the "Anti-Secession" Law or Taiwan's democratic accomplishments. Moreover, each time he gets warmed up, he backs down and reiterates the same old slogans about "one China" and the "1992 consensus."
So, at the end, the only thing the general public remembers about the meeting is the supposed "1992 consensus." This is truly a sad thing, since the Presidential Office on Wednesday reiterated that the Taiwanese government does not acknowledge that a consensus had ever been reached. By officially contradicting the government on such an important issue, Soong effectively stripped off any tactful political significance his meeting with Hu might have had.
On the other hand, not only is there no mention of the "1992 consensus" in Chen and Soong's 10-point communique, Soong's statement that "Taiwan independence is not an option" also directly conflicts with the 10-point consensus. As pointed out by the Presidential Office, the sixth point of the Chen-Soong consensus specifically states that "any change to the status quo of the Taiwan Strait will require the consent of the 23 million Taiwanese people, made on the basis of good faith across the Strait; no model of development between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait can be ruled out." In other words, Soong had himself acknowledged that Taiwan independence is an option.
In the fundamental spirit of democracy, the people of Taiwan have every right to decide their own future -- independence definitely being among their options. It is a right which no politician can take away. One cannot help but wonder how politicians such as Soong and Lien can do something so contradictory to the fundamental principle of democracy, and then come back to bask in the benefits of Taiwan's democratic accomplishments.
Ironically, in repudiating Taiwan independence as an option, Soong went on to say that independence would only bring disaster and war. The problem is that these disasters and war could be averted if only China could learn to respect Taiwan's democracy and its right to self-determination. So, at the end of day, Taiwan independence is not an option to some people only because Beijing had made it so.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS