By Chethana Janith, Jadetimes News
The Taiwan issue has seen a number of notable developments in recent weeks, both on the island itself and in the wider region.
The NEO’s previous treatment of the Taiwan issue was prompted by its legal component. This, in particular, has served as an occasion for speculation in the anti-PRC camp about the “real status” of the island in the international arena. In addition, a number of domestic laws passed in May-June 2024 provoked increased unrest among the active segment of the Taiwanese population itself.
Domestic aggravation
It should be recalled that the adoption of the above-mentioned laws, which greatly increase the role of the Taiwanese parliament, which now controls the activities of the Executive and the President, was made possible by the results of the regular general elections held on 13 January this year. The separatist Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) retained the presidency but lost its parliamentary majority. The opposition, i.e. the Kuomintang, and the Taiwan People’s Party, the third-largest party in terms of seats in the legislature, which supports the Kuomintang and stands with it (on important issues), now have a majority.
In this context, the “price of the (political) question” has risen sharply due to the de facto autonomy of the President’s status in the Taiwanese power system. In particular, it is primarily through him that Washington pursues its policy on the Taiwan issue as a whole. The adoption in May-June of a series of amendments to the current legislation effectively brings the presidential branch of power under parliamentary control as well.
The new Prime Minister has already had to address parliament. In mid-July, a resolution was passed inviting (or rather demanding) President W. Lai to share with the elected representatives of the people his assessment of the current state of affairs on the island, as well as his thoughts on plans for the near future. DPP lawmakers opposed the resolution by staging a demonstration in parliament.
Speaking to his party colleagues, W. Lai argued that the Taiwanese had entrusted the DPP with the “heavy burden of governing” the island. This is a highly controversial statement, given the results of the last parliamentary elections and the fact that he himself only holds the highest office because of the “peculiarities” of the existing legislation. This is precisely what the opposition, which won on 13 January, let us repeat, began to fight against. In this respect, the suspension of the new laws already approved by the Constitutional Court was a gesture of desperation.
External players in the Taiwan issue
As almost everywhere else in the world, the generalised “Trump problem” is moving to the centre of the external factor in the Taiwan issue. Namely, the uncertainty about the consequences of the decisive prospect of Donald Trump’s return to power in the country that has so far played the role of one of the main pillars of the post-war world order, including the world’s policeman.
It is still difficult to say anything definite about Washington’s future policy towards China in general and the increasingly important Taiwan issue in particular.
One can only note the contradictory actions of the previous Republican administration, which, in addition to introducing restrictive trade measures against China, concluded a so-called “Phase One” bilateral agreement to correct the huge distortions in favour of Beijing. Moreover, the initiator of the anti-Chinese tendencies at that time was not so much the president himself as his Secretary of State, M. Pompeo.
In this context, the caution with which D. Trump’s remarks on certain aspects of the Taiwan issue were received in Taipei during his interview with Bloomberg journalists on 25 June attracted attention. In addition to his (perfectly justified) attacks on the “green transition” and his traditional thesis on the need to “pay for defence”, he also said that the Taiwanese had “taken 100% of our chip business”.
At first glance, this last point might seem to be a consequence of insufficient “immersion in the subject”. In fact, what is probably meant here is that the basis for modern technologies in this almost fundamental area of the modern economy was formed by American developments at the turn of the 1950s and 1960s. For various reasons, the mass production of chips was organised in Taiwan. And just during the first presidency of D. Trump, the process of its “return” to the USA, to the state of Arizona, was initiated.
In general, the current Taiwanese leadership, as well as almost all-American allies, have reasons to be concerned about the prospect of D. Trump’s return to power in the United States.
As for other world players, Taiwan was quite sceptical about the electoral success of right-wing parties in Europe, but was relieved to see Ursula von der Leyen, the staunch leader of the pro-Atlantic forces on the continent, back at the helm of the Brussels bureaucracy.
Japan, whose presence on the Taiwan issue is becoming increasingly visible, took a noteworthy step in the form of joint maritime border exercises with Taiwan.
The response of the PRC to the current situation in Taiwan
As noted above, Beijing’s reaction to the DPP’s retention of the presidency, which determines the personal composition of the government, and to the apparent continuation of the creeping process of Taiwan gaining de facto independent status in the international arena (albeit without official announcement), was entirely expected. On 21 June, it was reported that “Taiwanese separatists” are now subject to the enforcement of PRC law. This includes legal proceedings that could lead to the death penalty for a particularly serious offence.
This led to a vociferous propaganda campaign in both Taipei and Washington, the main content of which was the thesis of the potential danger for any Taiwanese who found themselves in the territory of the PRC. In particular, the practice of group tourist trips to the “mainland” was suspended on 1 July under this pretext. Two weeks later, however, the same parliamentary opposition lifted these restrictions in a legally binding manner.
As for Beijing, it must have quickly realised that its most important tool for influencing the mood of the Taiwanese people, the expansion of direct contacts with them, could be in jeopardy. This includes the development of tourism. This is despite the fact that, judging by the results of the same elections on 13 January, the domestic political situation in Taiwan is developing quite positively for Beijing in this respect.
Thus, on 12 July, the PRC government issued a statement on its initial position on Taiwanese separatism in general and, in particular, on the question of enforcing PRC legislation on this phenomenon as such and on its supporters.
As for the latest developments on the political stage of the main geopolitical adversary, the PRC has so far refrained from making any definite comments on the likely return of D. Trump to the US presidency. However, the candidate for the position of the future president’s deputy, James David Vance, has already received some critical attention. However, it has been expressed in rather cautious tones and in the context of “well-established anti-Chinese misconceptions”.
The exchange of greetings between the Taiwanese President and the new head of the Brussels bureaucracy, U. von der Leyen, has also been met with cautious and critical comment. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that both sides have an interest in ensuring that the recently adopted trade restrictive measures against each other do not turn into a full-blown trade war.
Of course, the Chinese Foreign Ministry could not help but react to the Japanese-Taiwanese maritime border exercises mentioned above. But this reaction was not a “slamming the door” reaction either because despite all the difficulties, Japan-China relations do not look completely hopeless.
In general, the transformation of the Taiwan issue fits in well with the character of the development of the situation on the table of the “Great World Game”. Moreover, the former is simply a private (but important) reflection of the latter.
