New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) presidential candidate, held mostly closed-door meetings with US think tank experts during his visit to the US, but based on his public talks, interviews and op-ed pieces, it appears he wished to send the message in the US that he would be resuming a position of neutrality, taking the middle route to US political circles and academia. However, it remains to be seen if that approach would be supported by the rest of his party.
The reason for this doubt is because what Hou appears to have promised in the US vastly differs from the KMT approach of years past. If the party falls in line with Hou’s strategy and completely overhauls its foreign policy, then the candidate would have a better chance of keeping his campaign promises. If Hou cannot win over his party and get them on board with his foreign policy, then his promises in the US would become just empty words.
Of course, Hou would have to be consistent and not play both sides by promising one thing to the US and another to Taiwanese voters.
The issue in question is reflected in Hou’s dialogue in the US. For example, at several forums and discussions, on the issue of Taiwan’s national security, Hou promised multiple times that if elected, the national defense budget would reach at least 3 percent of GDP and that Taiwan would continue its collaboration with the US on national security.
Even though Hou’s statements are textbook answers for Taiwanese politicians visiting the US, several of the people he spoke with were not convinced. They pointed out that it was not long ago that the KMT had criticized the governing party for increasing the national defense budget and saying it was a form of provocation. The KMT also often seems to echo the narratives of anti-US supporters and dance to Beijing’s tune.
The KMT is always holding Hou back, whether intentionally or unintentionally. For example, regarding the so-called “1992 consensus,” US academics have called it an outdated “prerequisite” for presidential candidates established without the foundation of democracy. In other words, the notion has no public consensus. The issue has been a hot potato for the KMT, let alone an easy question for Hou.
The forcing of the “1992 consensus” down Hou’s throat by KMT senior grandees has only underscored the party’s underlying problem with its policy on China, and that is a lack of faith in democracy, and to view that flaw as a form of hindrance to cross-strait communications.
Inside sources say that former KMT chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) originally proposed a “4Ds strategy” to Hou — defense, dialogue, democracy and deterrence. As Chiang was well-trained in international relations, he must be aware that the idea of “democracy” can be associated with forming alliances and reassuring the public that the KMT’s cross-strait policy would be centered on democracy and freedom.
However, Hou has crossed out democracy and even changed “defense” to “de-escalation” in his final version, the “3Ds strategy.” It was rumored that a “campaign director” had concerns that led to the alteration. No matter what went on behind the scenes, it was a pity that Chiang’s proposal of “democracy” was dropped, underscoring the KMT’s quagmire.
Hou has emphasized that if elected, he would build on President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) foundations and protect the “status quo.” At a Heritage Foundation event, Hou tried to portray Taiwan as “the most dangerous place on Earth” to differentiate the KMT’s foreign policies from the Democratic Progressive Party, which drew criticism and opposition from attendees.
It is apparent that the KMT cannot get rid of its baggage. The KMT could have shaken off these shackles of contradictions and still retain its competitive edge, which has people asking: Will the KMT change or maintain its approach once it is back on home turf? Is Hou now running the show or is the tail wagging the dog?
Tzou Jiing-wen is editor-in-chief of the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper).
Translated by Rita Wang
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention. If it makes headlines, it is because China wants to invade. Yet, those who find their way here by some twist of fate often fall in love. If you ask them why, some cite numbers showing it is one of the freest and safest countries in the world. Others talk about something harder to name: The quiet order of queues, the shared umbrellas for anyone caught in the rain, the way people stand so elderly riders can sit, the
After the coup in Burma in 2021, the country’s decades-long armed conflict escalated into a full-scale war. On one side was the Burmese army; large, well-equipped, and funded by China, supported with weapons, including airplanes and helicopters from China and Russia. On the other side were the pro-democracy forces, composed of countless small ethnic resistance armies. The military junta cut off electricity, phone and cell service, and the Internet in most of the country, leaving resistance forces isolated from the outside world and making it difficult for the various armies to coordinate with one another. Despite being severely outnumbered and
After the confrontation between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday last week, John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, discussed this shocking event in an interview. Describing it as a disaster “not only for Ukraine, but also for the US,” Bolton added: “If I were in Taiwan, I would be very worried right now.” Indeed, Taiwanese have been observing — and discussing — this jarring clash as a foreboding signal. Pro-China commentators largely view it as further evidence that the US is an unreliable ally and that Taiwan would be better off integrating more deeply into
RSS