The recent visits to China by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) even said that Soong promised to support the passage of this crucial piece of national security legislation on the eve of his China visit. But on Tuesday, the PFP and the KMT once again jointly struck the arms-procurement bill -- along with a number of other bills proposed by the pan-green camp -- from the agenda. It is clear that as long as the pan-blues still enjoy a legislative majority, the chances that the bill will be passed are slim. Since both Lien and Soong see themselves as Chinese, how can they ever agree to allow Taiwan to purchase weapons to defend themselves against China's military aggression?
During last year's presidential election campaign, both Lien and Soong prostrated themselves and kissed the ground in an attempt to prove their love for Taiwan. In retrospect, their acts seem preposterous and hypocritical.
We still remember when in 1979 the late pope John Paul II returned to his homeland of Poland, 10 years after he left it. The pope's first action when he stepped off the plane in Warsaw was to kneel down and kiss the ground. This image has been burned into the minds of people around the world and has become a symbol of separation from one's home country. The pope's love for his country never changed, and commentators believe that the pope played an important part in helping the labor group Solidarity defeat Poland's communist government. There was no conflict between the pope's religious status and his status as a Pole, and he could be both a great pope and an outstanding Pole.
We have seen on TV how Lien and Soong returned to their old country, China. In particular, we saw how the wooden Lien suddenly showed a sense of humor, and how Soong could not hold back tears when paying his respects to his ancestors in Hunan Province. This reveals how much passion is stirred by one's homeland. This is a normal human reaction. The problem is that their status as Chinese is not compatible with their status as leaders of Taiwanese opposition parties. At a time when China is blocking Taiwan's participation in the international community and even threatening our national security, how can we place any trust in political parties that favor China?
This underlines the fundamental choice in Taiwan's electoral politics. When people vote they are not so much choosing between political ideals, but rather choosing between Taiwan and China. There is no better example of this than the attitude being taken by the various political parties to the arms-procurement bill. The parties that identify with Taiwan are all in favor of purchasing advanced weapons to improve the nation's defenses, while those who identify with China take their cue from the other side of the Taiwan Strait.
During their visits, China offered Lien and Soong gifts -- including pandas, better trade terms for Taiwan's fruit and a lifting of restrictions on tourist travel to Taiwan -- in a bid to help the pan-blue camp win votes in the National Assembly elections. Although Beijing did not succeed in "buying" votes with such offers, it successfully won over the two opposition leaders. So, not only is China the home country of both Lien and Soong, even the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has become their political ally.
It is hardly surprising that some pan-green supporters also object to the procurement of advanced weapons, though for different reasons to the pan-blue camp. Their fear is that in the event of a conflict, the pan-blue camp will turn over Taiwan's weapons to the People's Liberation Army (PLA), and join them in turning against the US. This is Taiwan's ultimate nightmare.
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