Taiwan’s recent election results have become a bit of a Rorschach test — what people see reflects what they want to see. For Beijing, the results reflect a popular repudiation of President Tsai’s (蔡英文) policies, including her approach to cross-Strait relations. Many in the KMT reached a similar conclusion and feel validated in their conviction that settling down cross-Strait tensions is a prerequisite to solving Taiwan’s other challenges. For many in the DPP, the results carry a different lesson, namely that pushing through too many reforms too fast and without sufficient regard for their social impact is politically damaging. In the lead-up to Taiwan’s presidential election over the next 13 months, these divergent narratives could lead each actor in different directions.
Beijing’s proximate goal during this period appears to be to undermine public confidence in President Tsai’s ability to administer Taiwan effectively. Beijing wants to diminish the possibility that Taiwan’s voters will re-elect Tsai. To do so, Beijing likely will amplify discontent, including by spreading disinformation. Beijing also will seek to bypass Taipei and reach out directly to local governments with mainland-friendly leaders to show that such an orientation leads to material benefits for its peoples. They will seek to attract support from Taiwan businessmen and Taiwan’s youth by highlighting the economic opportunities that can be unlocked by a more open attitude toward the mainland. At the same time, Beijing almost certainly will maintain a hard line against President Tsai and her administration, including by intensifying military pressure against Taiwan and further squeezing Taiwan’s international space. Overall, Beijing’s hard-soft approach likely will get both harder and softer in the coming months, as Beijing seeks to sharpen the contrast for Taiwan voters between the risks of moving away from and the benefits of moving closer to the mainland.
The KMT leadership likely will try to highlight the material benefits that its newly elected local leaders are securing for citizens in places like Kaohsiung and Taichung. They will seek to show that a friendly posture toward Beijing has led to more mainland tourists and expanded opportunities for agricultural exports to the mainland, among other things. In so doing, the KMT risks creating unrealistic public expectations of a windfall that may not materialize, especially in the relatively short period before the next presidential election. In other words, the KMT may confront a political challenge similar to its experience during the Ma (馬英九) administration — demonstrating that conciliation leads to quality-of-life improvements for Taiwan’s workers, and not just its tycoons.
If Beijing stubbornly insists on keeping all doors closed to the Tsai administration, as appears likely, then Tsai will look elsewhere for open doors. It is a law of diplomatic physics that the more Beijing squeezes Taiwan, the more Taiwan authorities turn to other partners to counteract Chinese pressure.
Typically, Taiwan’s diplomatic diversification strategies begin with the United States. Throughout 2019, the Tsai administration likely will want to show progress in visibly and tangibly strengthening relations with Washington, both on its own merits, and also as an example for other partners (e.g., Japan, India, Australia, European Union, Southeast Asian countries) to emulate. Strengthening unofficial US-Taiwan ties could take many forms: additional arms sales, senior-level visits, more high-profile transits by President Tsai through the United States, new US-Taiwan collaboration with third partners on shared challenges such as cybersecurity or public health, new US-Taiwan initiatives to expand educational and tourism exchanges, agreements to strengthen trade and economic relations, and so on.
But such an approach also carries several risks. For instance, if the pace of progress does not conform to Taiwan’s political calendar, or if Taiwan politicians publicly predict breakthroughs (e.g., concluding a US-Taiwan free trade agreement) that prove to be out of reach, then the Taiwan public will be left with unmet expectations. Another risk is that US-Taiwan ties could become a political football inside Taiwan’s fractious electoral environment, particularly if the 2020 presidential debate revolves around the question of whether Beijing is Taiwan’s gateway to the rest of the world, as members of the KMT argue, or whether Taiwan can bypass Beijing to deepen ties elsewhere, as members of the DPP contend. On the flip side, there also is risk of a “punish the traitor” dynamic emerging, particularly if DPP candidates accuse KMT politicians of appeasing the mainland and selling out Taiwan.
Another risk is that cross-Strait relations could become a more central feature of US-China relations than has been the case over the past several years. There presently is under-developed muscle memory at senior levels of the US-China relationship for managing cross-Strait tensions. At the same time, US-China relations arguably are more strained now than at any time in the past 40 years. As a consequence, there are fewer shock absorbers in the US-China relationship, which will amplify tensions and add stress to efforts to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
In other words, cross-Strait dynamics are likely to grow more complex in the coming months, as Beijing further squeezes Taipei and President Tsai responds by looking elsewhere for support. The decisions that leaders in Taipei, Washington, and Beijing make during this period could have profound consequences for the future of the region. Let’s hope those decisions are guided by wisdom, cool-headedness, and patience.
Ryan Hass is a David M. Rubenstein Fellow in the Foreign Policy program at Brookings, where he holds a joint appointment to the John L. Thornton China Center and the Center for East Asia Policy Studies.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS