One can guess that election time is around the corner when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) politicians start to warn that Taiwan could risk losing its diplomatic allies if the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) becomes the governing party.
Such was the case in the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election, when then-KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) pledged to adopt “flexible diplomacy” to end the nation’s diplomatic isolation and what he termed “pointless ‘scorched-earth diplomacy’ employed by the DPP,” which he described as “amateurish, capricious, dogmatic and based on brinkmanship.”
Similar rhetoric was sounded during Ma’s re-election campaign for the 2012 presidential election as he trumpeted his foreign policy of “modus vivendi” having promoted cross-strait peace and Beijing not stealing Taiwan’s diplomatic allies.
In a case of deja vu, earlier this week, Presidential Office spokesperson Charles Chen (陳以信) warned against the resurgence of diplomatic war with China, saying that a resumption of the DPP’s “scorched-earth diplomacy” would pose “an enormous risk to the ties across the Taiwan Strait and to our international relations and seriously undermine the peace and prosperity that has developed in the Taiwan Strait over the past seven-and-a-half years.”
Echoing Chen’s remarks, KMT Legislator Alex Tsai (蔡正元) — worrying that a victory for DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in next month’s presidential election could destabilize cross-strait ties — on Monday claimed that 18 of Taiwan’s 22 diplomatic allies have been lining up outside Beijing’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to establish diplomatic ties
Stepping up the rhetoric, Ma on Tuesday said that Taiwan lost six diplomatic allies under the previous DPP administration, whereas he consolidated diplomatic ties with allies since taking office in 2008, with the exception of losing the Gambia to China in 2013.
However, one has to ask: Has China really dropped its aggression and malice toward Taiwan while the KMT has been the governing party?
The answer is obvious: No.
The truth is that Ma’s so-called “cross-strait peace” is superficial, because Beijing has never renounced the use of force to achieve its goal of annexing Taiwan.
China’s enacting of the “Anti-Secession” Law shows nothing but malice and threatens peace.
China’s intentions are evidenced by the more than 1,600 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan along its eastern seaboard.
China’s ill intentions are made obvious by footage of its war games that showed drills featuring People’s Liberation Army troops maneuvering toward a five-story building with a tower resembling Taiwan’s Presidential Office Building.
In other words, what Ma has been touting as his diplomatic achievements are really more to Beijing’s credit than his.
No saber-rattling remarks have been necessary from China because the KMT has seemingly taken it upon itself to work on Beijing’s behalf, intimidating Taiwanese with talk, such as Alex Tsai’s.
Playing the “resurgence-of-diplomatic-war-with-China card” to frighten the public might have worked for the KMT before, but do Ma and Alex Tsai really take Taiwanese for fools and think they would fall for the same tricks again?
Rather than engaging in its old habit of intimidating people, the KMT would be well advised to put its resources toward the presentation of a concrete platform to convince voters that it deserves another four years in the Presidential Office.
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