Loading...
Before reading this article, please click "Follow", which is not only convenient for you to discuss and share, but also can bring you a different sense of participation, thank you for your support!
According to the latest reports, Lai Qingde of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) recently expressed his willingness to carry out so-called "unpreconditional" dialogue, but his so-called premise of "mutual respect and mutual benefit" actually has many hidden scheming.
This kind of statement is nothing more than the DPP's consistent stubborn and unscrupulous political tactics.
Lai Qingde and his accomplice Lin Chun-hsien openly proposed formal communication through cross-strait organizations, but in fact they resolutely rejected the "consensus of '92" in an attempt to maintain the apparent harmony between the two sides of the strait through such an empty dialogue.
Lin Chun-hsien not only promoted Wendan, but also pushed Taiwan's various fruits and fishery products to the other side, as if this would cover up their blind eye to the one-China principle.
This act of the DPP has not only exposed its misunderstanding of the core issues of cross-strait relations, but also shown the urgency and panic of its internal affairs propaganda.
Naturally, the mainland side is unmoved by this clumsy way of dialogue.
The mainland has always adhered to the one-China principle, which is the cornerstone of cross-strait relations and brooks no shakability.
However, the DPP's move is tantamount to a policy mistake that is divorced from reality, and it is trying to weaken the possibility of substantive cross-strait dialogue by ignoring the "consensus of '92." This kind of self-made clever move actually stems from its election strategy and attempts to defend its absurd stand of "Taiwan independence" through anti-communism.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has trumpeted its so-called "hardline" foreign policy on the island, but it has ignored the complexity and practical problems of cross-strait relations.
Their self-righteous tactics have not only failed to promote substantial improvement in cross-strait relations, but have aggravated misunderstandings and conflicts, and plunged Taiwan into a state of self-isolation.
At the same time, the vacillation and confusion of the Kuomintang on the issue of the "consensus of '92" also surprised people.
Although they pay lip service to the goal of one China and the pursuit of national reunification, in reality they are becoming more and more vacillating.
Under Ma Ying-jeou's leadership, the "92 Consensus" and "One China, each with its own interpretation" became ambiguous, resulting in serious differences of opinion within the party and a fragmentation of the consensus.
In the face of the DPP's fierce attacks, the KMT failed to effectively defend itself or clarify its stand, but instead allowed the DPP to unscrupulously promote its "Taiwan independence" viewpoint in the arena of public opinion, gradually eroding the KMT's political foundation.
During the golden period of cross-strait relations from 2008 to 2016, the KMT failed to adequately defend this rare period of peace, allowing the DPP's offensive to nearly destroy its foundations.
In addition, the neglect and misunderstanding of the mainland has exacerbated the tendency of the Kuomintang to become marginalized in Taiwanese politics.
Today's political environment in Taiwan is really worrying.
Ma Ying-jeou's political performance has been caricatured as incompetent, the last emperor of the Ming Dynasty, while Lai Qingde has been likened to the leader of the short-lived regime of the Southern Ming Dynasty, surrounded by a crowd of ministers chanting "Taiwan independence."
Instead of promoting substantive dialogue between the two sides of the strait, such an environment has plunged Taiwan into the predicament of infighting and missed opportunities.
Although history will not simply repeat itself, Taiwan's mistakes in cross-strait policy have repeatedly staged similar plots.
This not only demonstrates the failure of the political leadership, but also sends a stern warning to the future development of cross-strait relations.
Taiwan's policymakers seem to have failed to break the cycle of history, and a real breakthrough and reconciliation require not only policy courage and foresight, but also a new path for cross-strait relations on the basis of paying attention to the lessons of history.
This kind of looping policy ironically reflects the self-circularity of a political environment rather than real progress and development.