The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has given up the idea of making Taiwan unique and attractive. As globalization forces governments to enter political unions or emphasize their attractiveness in order to increase their global influence, the KMT government has done neither. Instead, it prefers to diminish Taiwan’s global reach by saying it is part of China, with the “one country, two areas (一國)” formula proposed by former KMT chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) during his visit to Beijing last month.
This formulation comes as nation states can no longer provide the same assurances to their citizens as before, because numerous economic decisions are taken elsewhere by companies, world unions or other international actors. They operate above governments and for this reason, governments need to create or enter political unions, such as the EU, in which countries can obtain greater control.
Others try to utilize their uniqueness like Bavaria in Germany, Scotland in the UK and Catalonia in Spain, which circumvent the nation state and rely on their regional uniqueness and industrial background. Taiwan’s strategy of joining a larger Chinese family will on the contrary diminish its international influence and control over its own future.
It is getting increasingly impossible for the KMT to explain what the difference is between the ambitions of the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The KMT’s answer will be that the “one country” in the “one country, two areas” refers to the Republic of China (ROC). However, no one outside a tiny and fast diminishing minority in the world is able to understand that the KMT seriously suggests that the ROC rules all of China, Mongolia and Taiwan. Rather than creating an atmosphere of peace and jubilation in China and in the world community, such an agenda could be seen as a direct threat to China and peace in the Taiwan Strait.
A stronger influence in global organizations requires that Taiwan be positively present in the hearts and minds of the world community. Potential supporters can be found among politicians, non-governmental organizations and others, and they may be able to provide new or the extra momentum to international policy initiatives from Taiwan. To do this, there has to be clear and positive political agenda from Taiwan that can attract international attention. Taking over China is not one of them.
To put it mildly, the “one country, two areas” formula is a clumsy attempt to further accommodate China as the KMT has done over the past four years. The KMT’s policy of refraining from provocations has already reduced the pressure on the EU and the US to assist Taiwan in organizations where its influence may be felt, thus reducing Taiwan’s participation as a sovereign state.
As an example, the KMT government has touted its “observer status” at the World Health Assembly — a position that is subject to a Chinese veto. One would think this should have led to a greater participation by Taiwan at the WHO, but a reality check shows that its participation in the world health body as a whole has deteriorated. Indeed, Taiwan participates in far fewer important committees compared with the period under the Democratic Progressive Party government, with its focus on creating a strong Taiwanese identity.
By saying Taiwan is Chinese, it links itself to China in the eyes of international politicians and further reduces its chances of being a member of regional trade unions that will have a significant say in the future. The consequence is an even more isolated Taiwan that hurts Taiwanese participation as a sovereign state and its people. Instead of making Taiwan unique, the KMT keeps repeating a bad habit of being on the wrong side of history.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS