Vice President William Lai (賴清德), the Democratic Progressive Party’s presidential candidate, on Monday last week told a forum in Yilan County that next year’s election is a choice between Zhongnanhai — the corridors of power in Beijing — and the White House.
“If a Taiwanese president can enter the White House, we will have achieved the political objective that we have been pursuing,” he said.
Asked about Lai’s remarks, Taiwan People’s Party Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) said: “We are vying to be the president of Taiwan, not a US state governor. Neither are we applying to be a foreign domestic helper in the White House.”
After his comment drew a backlash, Ko said that even though the US is an important ally, the president of Taiwan must remain autonomous, reiterating his policy of maintaining equidistant relations with Washington and Beijing. He later added on Twitter that Lai’s stated political objective “wasn’t enough,” meaning that Taipei should have good relations with every member of the international community.
As always happens in politics, and especially during major election campaigns, candidates’ words are misunderstood — either genuinely or intentionally — or distorted, if not by the candidates themselves, then by political commentators, the media or members of the public. Suffice it to say that both candidates have legitimate points, but it is important to cut through the political haze and the candidates’ respective agendas.
Ko’s position has legitimate value, which is why he believes the election should not be a choice between Washington and Beijing. He is also correct that ideally, the president of Taiwan should not value the relationship with the US over the exclusion of those with other countries.
This is, of course, not what Lai meant. If Taiwan’s president can be welcomed into the White House — without drawing an extremely negative reaction from Beijing — it would show that the nation has finally been officially recognized as part of the international community.
Indeed, if the US led on this, the governments of other countries would surely follow.
Ko also neglected to mention that the reason Lai would have to choose between Zhongnanhai and the White House is that the former would almost certainly refuse to deal with him, as it has with President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) since 2016. A less charitable interpretation of Ko’s omissions and apparent misreading of Lai’s point is that he is simply appealing to US skeptics to attract more pro-blue camp voters by criticizing his political rival.
Tsai has appointed Lai to attend the Aug. 15 inauguration of Paraguayan president-elect Santiago Pena. The vice president is to transit through the US on his way to Asuncion. Lai would not be visiting the White House, nor is he expected to meet any high-ranking US officials. Furthermore, it is customary for Taiwanese officials to travel through the US when visiting allies in South or Central America.
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Mao Ning (毛寧) said that Beijing has already lodged a complaint with the US, objecting to its “connivance” with “Taiwanese separatists” by allowing Lai’s stopover.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday said that the stopover is “very routine” and that Beijing should not use it as a pretext for initiating provocative actions.
All of Taiwan’s presidential candidates should welcome a US official as senior as Blinken speaking up for the vice president and pushing back against Beijing’s intimidation. They should also support Lai on his mission of goodwill to a diplomatic ally, regardless of whether it is in their political interest during this campaign. It is certainly in the national interest.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS