Prior to celebrating the fourth anniversary of its founding on Aug. 6, the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) is reported to have mulled direct interaction with China. Appearing as it did in the headlines of the China Times, the TSU's action indeed came as a shock.
The pan-blue camp considered the TSU's move to be to its advantage, as it indicates that the visits by both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) chairmen to China have triggered a domino effect, causing even the most vociferous pro-independence party to jump on the "China fever" bandwagon. Most pan-greens found the TSU's move unbelievable and suicidal.
It's hardly surprising to see that the TSU is drawing a great deal of criticism after its intentions were made public. In addition, the party's lame attempts to explain its proposed new policy shows that they have yet to grasp the gravity of the situation.
The party official who proposed the policy shift, Director of the TSU's Department of Policy Studies Lee Hsien-jen (
To defend his position on this issue, TSU Chairman Shu Chin-chiang (蘇進強) said that the TSU would not jump on the China bandwagon and that in interacting with Beijing, it would adopt the principle of the "three noes": it would not rule out possibilities, not reject possibilities and not actively pursue such possibilities.
Most party members won't object to that. But the real problem is this. The TSU has now agreed to support "normal" cross-strait relations on two conditions: first, that China stop its restriction of Taiwan's international space. Second, that China not insist on unification as a precondition for talks. If those conditions are met, the TSU has in turn said it will not set independence as a condition for talks. Under these parameters, Shu said, the two sides of the Strait could pursue a normalization of relations. While this is not exactly an about-face, it is certainly a shift to a more moderate position.
It's fine if the TSU takes a more moderate tack. But we must realize that when the TSU shifts, a new political group will immediately take over its current ideological position. This is typical of the political scene in Taiwan. The point is, the TSU will be pronounced dead on the day it begins moving to the moderate center, for its existence as a party is meaningless without its pro-independence stance.
The TSU's shift has a lot to do with the "single-member district, two-vote" electoral system that will be used for future legislative elections. As the "fundamentalist" group in the pan-green camp, the TSU is now worried that they will not be able to survive under the new system unless they adopt a more centrist approach.
To be sure, the new electoral system puts the TSU at a distinct disadvantage. However, will abandoning their core ideology win them more votes? They will likely suffer more than benefit from trying to moderate their stance. What sets the TSU apart and gives it appeal at the ballot box is that it champions establishing Taiwan as an independent country.
There's another, perhaps even more serious question: In light of the recent proposal, do the members of the TSU still represent the ideals of former president Lee Teng-hui (
Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator based in Taipei.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
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