I think this will make an interesting thread.
Lien’s and Soong’s visits to China have sent Taiwan’s green camp into disarray. The DPP is faltering in the polls just before a National Assembly election.
In some ways the US has allowed this to happen. US officials have been much more enthusiastic about Lien’s and Soong’s visits than about asking Beijing to talk to Taiwan’s elected government.
I am reminded of George W Bush’s damning cricitism of Chen Shui-bian in front of Wen Jiabao in December 2003 for pushing a referendum. Also remember the more recent remarks by Colin Powell that Taiwan has no sovereignty.
There are many other signs of US preference for the KMT which I won’ list here.
All in all, the US is clearly unhappy with the DPP for pushing for more independence and for being so disobedient, putting the US in harm’s way. US policy now seems to reflect a notion that the KMT can better serve US interests than the DPP.
My questions:
-
Is the KMT going to be more sensitive to US concerns than the DPP has been? Or is it going to be just as recalcitrant in the opposite direction, namely unification with China? Remember both the KMT and PFP continue to block the arms budget despite US pressure.
-
We know status quo has been US policy on Taiwan for a long time. By keeping Taiwan’s status undetermined, the US can avoid a conflict with China over Taiwan independence while also very much keeping Chinese naval power off the Pacific.
Now, if the KMT is going to push for unification with China once (I mean, if) it regains power, will the US have the wherewithal to protect its strategic interests? Do you think the US has enough leverage to make the KMT keep a distance from China?
-
If not, do you think closer Taiwan-China ties will pose higher strategic risks to America and Japan, or do you think the risks are being exaggerated?
-
My last question is basically a summary of the above three: Is it wise for the US to prefer the KMT over the DPP? Which of them do you think serves US interests better? Or is the US “status quo” policy simply becoming too uncanny to carry on?