Zheng Liwen, leader of Taiwan’s main opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT), began a two-week tour of the United States on June 1, which is an interesting development in one of the key issues at the current stage of the “Great Global Game.”
Kuomintang Position on Taiwan
Any representative of the current Taiwan administration and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will say without hesitation that this recent trip is the second, since as recently as this May, Ms. Zheng had already traveled to the PRC, where she behaved rather inappropriately. Meanwhile, the Chinese leadership would respond: “naturally, the first, because she came to us in the capacity of the head of a patriotic party from one of our provinces, whose leaders signed the ‘1992 Consensus’ with us back in 1992 on the fundamental principle of “One China.”
If you ask Zheng Liwen herself, she is unlikely to provide a direct answer. Instead, she would probably launch into lengthy reflections on the “need to maintain peace and fruitful cooperation between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.” This is because, when signing the Consensus, the Kuomintang undoubtedly meant “One China” to refer not to the current PRC, but to the “Republic of China,” which was formed at the beginning of the last century as a result of the Xinhai Revolution led by Sun Yat-sen, the founder of the Kuomintang and the “father of modern China.” A figure, incidentally, who is also revered in the PRC, where his mausoleum is located.
An almost identical “ambiguous and indeterminate” position on the Taiwan issue (one that has been fixed at the legislative level) has been maintained by Washington for nearly half a century. Its strategy of ambiguity remains the main obstacle preventing Beijing from resolving this issue on its own terms. It should be noted, however, that this strategy is far from the worst option in the current relations between the PRC and its main geopolitical opponent. Given that positions of supporters of a shift to a “strategy of clarity,” that is, establishing (or even restoring) official relations with the island, which were severed in 1979, are gaining momentum in the United States.
These and other nuances pertaining to the Taiwan issue were present during the visit of the KMT leader to the United States, one of the two major powers directly involved in it.
Goals, Course, and Some Results of Zheng Liwen’s Trip to the United States
At a press conference held before the trip, Zheng Liwen outlined the main goal of the entire event, which boiled down to “assisting the United States in preventing war.” To this end, she planned to visit the country’s major cities from the West Coast to the East Coast and back, holding meetings with representatives of pro-Taiwan lobbying organizations, leading American think tanks, business circles, Congress, the State Department, the Department of War, and even the presidential administration.
In reality, however, in meetings with Zheng Liwen, the US government was only represented by the legislative branch. Neither the president’s administration, nor the president himself, nor the ministries mentioned above appeared in any way among the participants in the discussions held with her. When already on US soil, Zheng Liwen learned that a previously scheduled meeting with members of the National Security Council had been canceled without explanation. In all this, it is not difficult to see one of the “nuances” noted earlier in the recent months regarding the US administration’s approach to relations with the PRC in general and the Taiwan issue in particular.
At the same time, there is hardly any basis to claim that the “Trump gang” within the American establishment is ready to sacrifice Taiwan in order to keep relations with the PRC in check — although there has been plenty of speculation on this topic. Nevertheless, the desire not to give Beijing any pretext to suspect shady games on an issue that is extremely sensitive was evident during the KMT leader’s visit to the United States.
The main anti-China, pro-Taiwan “hawk” in the United States is Congress, where there is bipartisan consensus on the matter. This has been evident for a long time and was confirmed once again during meetings between congressmen and Zheng Liwen. The guest was repeatedly asked when the Kuomintang would finally allow for adopting a “special” defense budget intended for the purchase of an “additional” batch of American weapons. During these meetings, the overarching theme of “ensuring Taiwan’s security” remained constantly in focus for the congressmen. In turn, Zheng Liwen, apparently seeking to reassure her hosts, stated that during her May negotiations with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, the topic of unifying Taiwan with the “mainland” was not raised at all.
Zheng Liwen’s public events were accompanied by demonstrations involving migrants from the PRC and Taiwan. These demonstrations were both positive and negative toward her. In particular, some shouted accusations against the Kuomintang of “totalitarianism similar to that of the PRC.”
During the final stage of Zheng Liwen’s trip, the draft US defense budget for 2027 was published. For the first time in such a document, issues of control over Taiwan are considered not in isolation, but in the context of the broader problem of controlling the so-called “First Island Chain,” which also includes Japan and the Philippines. It should be noted that at the expert level, this issue has been discussed in the United States for at least two decades, since the emergence of the PRC as the new main opponent on the international stage. However, as we repeat, this is the first time it has appeared in the draft of one of the main state documents.
Europe’s Own East Asia
Without much effort or exaggeration, a functional analogue of the “First Island Chain” located in the western Pacific can also be found in Europe. Here too it stretches from north to south, including parasitic formations such as the Baltic states and present-day Ukraine. The latter is once again gripped by its ancestral affliction known as “Mazepism,” and not by the notorious “fascism.”
The European version of the “First Island Chain” is also designed to divide the continent into two parts, plunging them into exhausting, mutually directed militarization and an arms race. This construct was created by the backstage ruling forces in Europe, which act through pea-brained clowns on the public stage that imitate and conceal political realities. These clowns reached the theatrical stage through procedures that have a very indirect (or no) relation to democracy and to the “represented” peoples.
Through these proxy clowns, a scenario for yet another massacre is being realized, one that has been tested twice in the last century. Its main goal will be to conceal, under new blood, traces of various global crimes such as COVID-19 and the issues of “Big Pharma,” the “anthropogenic factor in climate change,” the BLM and LGBT+ movements, replacement of indigenous populations, juvenile justice, the international drug business, and so on.
All this socio-ideological madness is imposed through “positive discrimination,” attempts to counter which are labeled with unpleasant marker words such as “obscurantism,” “extremism,” or “fascism.” It is also reinforced by invoking the memory of blood previously shed due to the actions of the predecessors of today’s provocateurs.
It seems there is no other way to avoid this grim prospect than by activating and coordinating the actions of the national liberation movements that are emerging everywhere in Europe in their struggle against the de facto occupation regimes, which do not hesitate to call themselves “democracies.” Displaying the image of Charlie Kirk on the banners of this struggle seems entirely appropriate.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on Asia-Pacific region issues
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
