Following the landslide victory by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in last year’s nine-in-one elections, there has been ample commentary and analysis of the outcome’s impact on cross-strait relations.
Some analysts have said that — as these were local elections — they were not a reflection on President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) cross-strait policies.
I disagree: These were indeed local elections, but the results reflected a widespread discontent with the lack of good governance at both the local and national level, anger at the lack of transparency and the chumminess with big business and a rejection of the president’s accommodating policies toward China.
However, it was not a vote against good relations with China. The DPP also favors good relations with China, but not at the expense of Taiwan’s economic and political independence.
The vote was a rejection of the way in which the Ma administration has approached relations with Beijing: going too far, too fast and undermining Taiwan’s sovereignty, freedom and democracy.
So, what is the best way forward?
Some pessimistic analysts predict that the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) loss, and a possible victory for the DPP in the presidential and legislative elections in January next year would put cross-strait relations “on hold,” or would increase the prospect of souring relations with the People’s Republic of China, leading to additional tensions in the area.
There I disagree too: I believe that this change of political landscape in Taiwan opens the possibility for a new beginning, as it brings to the fore a party that is more truly representative of Taiwanese.
The KMT came from China with Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) in 1949 and was often too steeped in its Chinese Civil War heritage.
The DPP does not carry this baggage, and can be trusted to defend the interests of Taiwanese as a whole.
However, a solution to cross-strait issues does require more than a new, and truly representative, ruling party in Taipei.
As argued in two excellent articles (“Washington’s obsolete Taiwan policy,” by Michael Turton in The Diplomat on Sunday, and “Debunking the myth of inevitability in the Taiwan Strait” by J. Michael Cole in Thinking Taiwan on Tuesday), it requires a new paradigm, a new way of addressing the Taiwan Strait issue.
It requires a new way of thinking in Beijing, whereby it ceases to perceive Taiwan as part of the old Chinese Civil War against the KMT, but starts to think of it as a new and friendly neighbor, with which it can build a constructive relationship.
The relation between the UK and the US comes to mind.
More than 200 years ago, Britain still claimed sovereignty over the US and fought the War of 1812, but now they are the best of friends and have a “special relationship.”
It also requires new policies in Washington and European capitals, where the current thinking is still too steeped in the old “one China” concept, imposed by the fact that in the 1970s there were two competing regimes vying to represent China.
Neither the Chinese Communist Party nor the KMT represented Taiwanese at the time. Taiwanese did not get full and fair representation until the transition to democracy in the early 1990s.
The fact that there is now a fully free and democratic Taiwan should be ample reason for the international community, including China, to move toward normalization of relations with the nation, so it can be a full and equal member of the international family. That would indeed lead to true and lasting stability across the Taiwan Strait.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
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