Taiwanese are to elect their next president next month.
The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), says that he is the only candidate who can ensure the security of Taiwan.
However, his security policies are misleading at best and naively fall into a trap set by China. They endanger Taiwan at worst.
Hou’s major arguments are based on the so-called 3Ds strategy — “Deterrence, Dialogue and De-escalation,” which appeared in an article titled “Taiwan’s path between extremes” published on the Web site of Foreign Affairs magazine.
“Taiwan’s most important priority should be to strengthen its national defense and deter the use of force by mainland China. To do so, I am to build a strong military, enhance cooperation with partners and allies, and increase our deterrence capabilities to better safeguard Taiwan, and the island groups of Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu,” Hou wrote in the article. “I have no unrealistic expectations about Beijing’s intentions of seeking unification, if necessary, by force.”
Hou fully recognized that China is Taiwan’s biggest security concern and would like to boost Taiwan’s defense capabilities and strengthen ties with like-minded allies, especially the US, to deter a Chinese attack.
In this respect, Hou, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) presidential candidate, Vice President William Lai (賴清德), are on the same page. What makes a big difference is Hou’s appalling naivety in seeking peace with China.
“Dialogue between Taipei and Beijing is also a crucial way to defuse crises and ensure peace and stability,” Hou wrote. “I support the 1992 consensus, the approach to cross-strait dialogue agreed to by Taiwanese officials and counterparts from the mainland, consistent with the Constitution.”
Admittedly, Taiwan and China have no formal communication channel right now, which China says was caused by the Tsai administration’s refusal to accept the so-called “1992 consensus.”
However, the “consensus” is a myth cooked up by the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but the CCP’s version is totally different from the KMT’s.
First, the KMT unilaterally claims that the “1992 consensus” means “one China with respective interpretations.” It says that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) agree that there is “one China,” but disagree on whether “China” is represented by the PRC or the ROC.
However, in China’s version, the “1992 consensus” only means “one China.”
China asserts that the PRC is the only representative of China and there is no room for interpreting what “one China” means, far from what the KMT claims.
Moreover, rather than a real consensus, the “1992 consensus” is an “alternative fact” of the KMT. It was invented by a staunch pro-China KMT member, then-Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起). In 2000, Su admitted that he coined the term to replace “one China” to connect the ideas of the KMT and the CCP, although he understood perfectly that both parties never had a consensus on “one China.”
The fabricated “1992 consensus” has haunted Taiwan ever since.
Unfortunately, having been promoted by the KMT and the CCP, it has misled many people domestically and internationally.
It is naive of Hou to believe that resurrecting the “1992 consensus” would reopen dialogue with China, and could ensure peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait — a mantra he has repeated during his presidential campaign rallies.
However, his wishful thinking might crash in the face of grim reality.
Beijing has made it manifestly clear that Taiwan is a province of China and peace can only be achieved through unification under “one country, two systems.”
In China’s view, whether Taiwan is de facto independent or maintains the “status quo” makes no difference, because both resist unification and are therefore unacceptable.
“Continued interactions between the two sides on functional matters will help de-escalate future risks,” Hou wrote in the article.
For most countries, bilateral engagement is beneficial and improves ties, but this has been proved wrong or even dangerous when engaging with China, especially in trade.
In the past seven years, the authoritarian regime has constantly weaponized trade to coerce Taiwan.
Many countries have experienced China’s economic coercion firsthand. They have been implementing a derisking strategy by decreasing business relations with and shifting supply chains from China, as well as preventing critical technologies from flowing to the nation.
Responding to China’s hostility, US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo warned that Beijing is “the biggest threat we’ve ever had,” and stressed that “China is not our friend.”
Ominously, an increasingly assertive and aggressive China is doubling down its military posturing, constantly threatening neighboring countries, but this revisionist power shamelessly claims it is protecting its “developing interests.”
Moreover, CCP Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) has an even bigger ambition — to change the rules-based international order and replace it with authoritarianism in the name of national rejuvenation.
Without doubt, under the communist authoritarian order, the world would no longer be liberal as we know it.
However, before Xi achieves his ultimate goal, unification with Taiwan is his top priority.
When Xi met with US President Joe Biden last month in San Francisco, regarding Taiwan, he said: “Look, peace is all well and good, but at some point we need to move toward resolution more generally.”
This quote alarmed some current and former US officials, who regarded it as evidence that Xi is getting increasingly impatient.
Among major elections in the world next year, Taiwan’s presidential and legislative elections are the most consequential in Asia. The results will affect Taiwan, the Indo-Pacific region and beyond.
To protect Taiwan’s freedom, security and democratic values, Hou’s 3Ds strategy is dangerous and impractical.
Tu Ho-ting is a senior journalist and international affairs analyst based in Taiwan.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS