Taiwan’s second transfer of power in the democratic era represents a deepening of democracy, but the implications will be severe if the new government cannot properly handle cross-strait relations.
If the government instead relies on China economically and curries favor with it in political terms, then this would allow the dictatorial Chinese system to eat away at and finally swallow the Taiwanese polity.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) reaffirmed his stance of “no unification, no independence and no war” in his inaugural speech on May 20, calling upon the two sides to pursue reconciliation and peace in cross-strait and international contexts.
The most important part of this three-part slogan is “no unification.”
Refusing unification with China is the mainstream position of Taiwanese people, and Ma was elected partly thanks to his “no unification” stance. But let’s not forget that unification has always been Beijing’s goal. Taiwan’s security can hardly be safeguarded if China does not endorse Ma’s policy.
Ma has vowed to sign a peace agreement with China if it promises not to use force, though whether it can really be trusted not to do so is another matter entirely. Meanwhile, Beijing has made no commitment to unification without force.
China’s United Front work aims to assimilate targets into the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) viewpoint and ideals, and Taiwan is its most important target. Taiwanese politicians and the general public should at least be aware of and prepared for this to protect their sovereignty and safety when dealing with China.
As for the CCP’s exercise of United Front tactics, there is a brief exposition of such reasoning in an essay written by Mao Zedong (毛澤東) in 1940 entitled “On Policy” in the second volume of the Selected Works of Mao Zedong.
Mao wrote: “Our policy is to make use of contradictions, win over the many, oppose the few and crush our enemies one by one.”
Taiwan should therefore minimize its “contradictions” so that China cannot take advantage of them. Unfortunately, not only is Taiwan rife with contradictions, it is also allowing China to take advantage of them thanks to the liberal characteristics of its democratic system and human weakness.
The most serious contradiction is the gulf between the pan-blue and pan-green camps. Each camp also has internal contradictions.
After the pan-green camp’s defeat in the January legislative elections, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) extended an olive branch. Since Ma was elected president, the CCP has also been capitalizing on contradictions between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the new executive.
Perhaps the CCP’s most successful tactic has been to take advantage of former KMT chairman Lien Chan’s (連戰) proposal that the CCP and the KMT join hands to oppose Taiwanese independence. For their part, the communists will continue to manipulate the Lien family until its usefulness is worn out.
Beijing’s invitation to KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) to visit China is its latest tactic, and has the following effects. It tells Taiwanese that the KMT and the CCP are “equal” but that the governments of the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan are not.
It elevates the status of the KMT as a party in the Chinese party-state mindset to demonstrate to Taiwan how Beijing can curtail Ma.
In cooperating with the KMT, the purpose of these measures is to corrode Taiwan’s sovereignty and diminish the status of the Taiwanese government.
In light of Lien and Wu’s power and the China connection, will Ma be able to rule independently and autonomously?
In examining Taiwan’s future domestic clashes, we cannot afford to ignore China’s United Front activities that exert influence behind the scenes.
How will the CCP go about winning the support of a majority of Taiwanese? It will offer benefits to those who team up with it in the fight against the minority.
The CCP is therefore likely to extend to Ma a certain number of favors in exchange for a greater benefit: unification.
But the CCP’s eventual goal is to defeat all its enemies, one by one, so anyone who benefits in the short term should not celebrate too soon.
Likewise, Taiwan’s politicians and businesspeople operating in China should be on their guard.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taiwan.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS