The time for political talks between Taiwan and China is not ripe, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said. This is true, but the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) cross-strait policies already have political implications that favor China’s agenda. The root cause is obvious: The KMT government has no visionary project for the nation. However, the good news is Taiwanese have awakened to this fact, as seen by Ma’s low approval ratings.
The KMT lacks a vision for the nation because it defines itself in terms of cross-strait integration. This integration is far more important for the KMT than building up Taiwanese society and democracy, despite democracy being what unites society and an essential part of what defines the Taiwanese identity.
Over the past five years, the KMT has focused on inking trade pacts and easing restrictions on cross-strait flights and investments. Recently, cross-strait investments were expanded into the services sector and restrictions on the movement of workers between Taiwan and China have been eased. In short, China is steadily gaining more influence in Taiwan. Even in the educational system, the KMT ensures that Chinese culture and history are high on the agenda.
The political implications of these policies are hidden behind a series of technical treaties, so-called economic necessities and statements that emphasize how China will benefit Taiwan’s businesses and economic competitiveness, as seen in the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA).
Even when the KMT proposes “new” ideas, it just continues to present more of the same, such as the three proposed “free economic pilot zones.” The zones are hardly innovative and could end up hurting Taiwan, for example by allowing Chinese agricultural products to be imported and processed in the zones, and then labeled “Made in Taiwan.”
Regardless, it is unfair to disregard all of the KMT policies. The cross-strait initiatives it has championed do create opportunities for mutual understanding and contribute to an enriched understanding of Taiwanese identity. One could also argue that cross-strait rapprochement reduces the stakes of either side taking wrong steps, but considering China’s assertive behavior and its economic power, this may not be such a strong argument.
Internationally, these policies create a situation in which Taiwan is increasingly disappearing from the radar as it gets harder for international observers to see the real differences between China and Taiwan. The reason for this is that the countries have not yet moved into sensitive political discussions. Such discussions would reveal that the current cross-strait policies are not sustainable and that there is a huge gap between Taiwan and China that cannot be ignored.
This poses a reality problem: To be precise, the KMT is failing to address the real needs of Taiwanese in streets and homes across the nation, with unemployment rising and worries about the future increasing.
The nation needs a government with the ambition to build a strong Taiwanese society and democracy. Taiwan continues to have a great reputation in the international arena, and it can build on this by improving the cooperation on industrial innovation and research it already has with many countries.
To succeed, Taiwan has to reverse worrying developments in its democracy, because as press freedom and the legal system suffer, Taiwan and China get closer. Also, a robust democracy and respect for human rights are essential for Taiwan’s sustainable development.
The KMT’s strategy seems to rely on a recovery in the world economy to persuade the public to support its policies. Taiwanese want a better quality of life, but the KMT has no visionary project to fulfil these wishes.
Michal Danielsen is chairman of Taiwan Corner.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS