The presidential election was a competitive three-way race, of which Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Vice President William Lai (賴清德) became the winner. However, Lai received only 40.05 percent of the total votes and the DPP did not win the majority of legislative seats. In other words, to carry out its agendas, the DPP would need the support of opposition parties. First and foremost, they must reach a consensus concerning the cross-strait relationship.
Due to their different pasts, the pan-blue and pan-green camps see China differently and it is only natural that their political strategies and cross-strait policies differ. Over the past few decades, both sides have focused on political struggles, demonizing the other without seeing common ground. Consequently, an agreement is hardly attainable, solidarity cannot be established and Taiwan’s ability to confront China is weakened.
A consensus could and should be achieved. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is more oriented toward China, whereas the DPP wants to keep its distance from Beijing. Yet both parties and their supporters want to maintain freedom and democracy as a way of life, insisting on the Republic of China’s sovereignty and refusing to be “unified” with China. This is the fundamental ground on which Taiwanese stand together in the face of China.
The KMT and the DPP should seek the greatest common denominator under the banners of “democratic coexistence” and “solidarity co-living.”
The value of “democratic coexistence” must be upheld and the key is to underscore the two parties’ similarities. Given that the KMT and the DPP would defend Taiwan’s democracy, they should collaborate based on the principle of democratic coexistence while fending off China’s efforts to change the “status quo.” The two parties should avoid labeling each other as China’s “fellow traveler” that betrays Taiwan or stigmatizing Taiwanese independence as “toxic.” Only in doing so could the parties reach an agreement on cross-strait policy and enhance the nation’s solidarity to withstand China. Every political party should realize the importance of coopereation to gain more leverage, so that Taiwan’s voice in the international community could be amplified and its legitimacy consolidated.
In this sense, the differences between the two parties’ policies should be minimized to achieve “solidarity co-living.” Once the KMT and the DPP are willing to respect each other in a democracy, both sides could compromise on their strategic differences. The DPP should make an effort to understand KMT supporters’ “long-distance Chinese nationalism” and revise its cross-strait policy accordingly in a flexible, realistic manner. This would strengthen the DPP’s agenda of maintaining the “status quo” of the Republic of China in Taiwan. The KMT should also make an effort to respect the DPP’s past, based on which the DPP and its supporters affirm Taiwan’s autonomy and sovereignty. In this sense, maintenance of the “status quo” of the Republic of China in Taiwan should be the core of the so-called “1992 consensus.”
Undeniably, Taiwanese have developed a national consciousness. The majority, regardless of pan-blue or pan-green camp affiliation, do not want to be a part of China — a reality Beijing fails to recognize. In facing China, all Taiwan’s political parties should seek common ground despite their differences. With solidarity established, Taiwan’s democratic values and strategic location could be fully utilized to resolve unfavorable situations. In doing so, Taiwan would be able to request that China change and establish a stable relationship across the Taiwan Strait. It is hoped that president-elect Lai would work toward such a future, leading Taiwan forward.
Michael Lin is a retired diplomat who served in the US.
Translated by Emma Liu
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS