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.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS