Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in August 2020 accused the administration of President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) of leading Taiwan into a perilous situation as it allegedly pursued a foreign policy that leans heavily toward the US and antagonizes China.
At a forum organized by the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation, titled “A Nation Unsafe,” Ma also criticized Tsai for not acknowledging the so-called “1992 consensus,” which he said had eliminated the basis of mutual trust between Taipei and Beijing.
This was a complete inversion of the truth. In reality, it is China that has for the past decade been flexing its muscles in the Asia-Pacific region, militarizing the South and East China seas, and using “wolf warrior” diplomats to harass and coerce neighboring nations, including Taiwan.
During the past three decades, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has jettisoned its anti-communist stance and pivoted toward China, shunning its traditional ally, the US. The highly ideological nationalist wing of the party has for many years agitated for “rapid unification” with China, while more moderate party members have tried to have their cake and eat it: playing Washington off against Beijing while riding the gravy train of China’s booming economy.
However, as the Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) said: “You cannot sup on fish and bear’s paw at the same time” — sometimes you have to make a choice between two courses of action.
There are tentative signs — merely the slenderest of green shoots at this stage — that the KMT could be in the foothills of a major foreign policy shift: pivoting away from China and back toward the US.
The first sign was the party’s announcement last month that it would reopen a liaison office in Washington, which was closed by Ma after he took office. At a news conference, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) vowed to pursue a pragmatic foreign policy and re-engage with Washington.
Another sign came from across the Taiwan Strait.
The state-run People’s Political Consultative Daily on Saturday labeled KMT legislators Lin Wei-chou (林為洲) and Charles Chen (陳以信) “secret Taiwanese independence advocates.” While Beijing habitually denounces Democratic Progressive Party politicians, targeting KMT legislators in this way is unprecedented.
Chen told reporters that the path forward for the KMT involves growing closer to the US while being more amicable with China, and called for a more balanced outreach to both sides.
One theory is that Beijing launched the attack in an attempt to sow division within the KMT and scupper the party’s pivot to Washington.
The latest indication that the KMT could be undergoing a metamorphosis is a security forum held by the KMT-affiliated National Policy Foundation, which began on Wednesday.
The general tone at the forum was positive, consensual and avoided scaremongering or hyping up the threat from China. Chi Yue-yi (亓樂義), an expert on China’s military, is a case in point. Chi said that China is unlikely to attain the military capability to launch an all-out invasion of Taiwan for at least 10 years, but added that there is a high risk that it might initiate limited “gray zone” conflicts to force Taipei to the negotiating table. This is a more optimistic timeframe than recent assessments made by the Pentagon.
It is too early to tell whether the KMT’s US pivot is more than a cosmetic change, and voters should remain skeptical. The ball is in the KMT’s court to prove whether it can meaningfully rebalance its foreign policy and distance itself from Beijing.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent