Tensions over Taiwan
Ma Ying-jeou warns that William Ching-te Lai is leading cross-strait relations into "a major crisis."
Taiwanese leader William Ching-te Lai delivered a speech on Thursday, March 13, outlining 17 measures across five key areas—moves that appear more confrontational than anything his predecessor, Tsai Ing-wen, pursued over her eight-year tenure. Beijing swiftly responded with a statement the same day, followed by newspaper editorials condemning the provocation. While the mainland’s reaction has so far been limited to rhetoric, tensions across the Taiwan Strait have once again entered a period of heightened turbulence.
Lai’s speech came just a day ahead of Beijing’s commemoration of the 20th anniversary of its Anti-Secession Law, marked by a symposium led by Zhao Leji, a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and chairman of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, China’s top legislative body. People’s Daily, the CPC’s flagship newspaper, published Zhao’s speech in full, along with excerpts from four other speeches given at the symposium. While these remarks do not seem to have been direct responses to Lai’s speech, People’s Daily also ran a separate commentary specifically addressing his remarks.
Beyond the timing, Lai’s designation of the Chinese mainland as a “foreign hostile force” is likely to be a major irritant for Beijing. As C. V. Chen pointed out in a column in the China Times, a major newspaper in Taiwan, under Taiwan’s constitution—formally the Constitution of the Republic of China—there is only one China. Moreover, Taiwan’s Anti-Infiltration Act, passed during Tsai’s administration, defines “foreign hostile forces” but does not specify who they are, nor does it grant Lai the authority to make such a determination. (C. V. Chen was the founding vice chairman and inaugural secretary-general of the Straits Exchange Foundation, Taiwan’s quasi-official organization for liaising with Beijing, established in the early 1990s.)
Lai also took a systematic approach in formulating his 17 measures, which could easily lead Beijing to conclude that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) leader is taking a comprehensive and substantial step toward deepening the divide between Taiwan and the mainland. Previously, the DPP administration had been slow to reopen Taiwan to mainland tourists—an action that could have significantly eased tensions. Now, Lai has pledged to place broader cross-strait exchanges under a stricter “risk management” framework.
The timing of Lai’s speech is also notable, given that former U.S. President Donald Trump appears largely indifferent to Taiwan, raising fresh doubts about the strength of Washington’s security commitment to the island.
With U.S. domestic politics dominating global headlines and Beijing’s response thus far limited to statements, it would be easy to overlook this development. However, as I warned on Twitter on March 13, “tensions have suddenly ratcheted up very high with the leader’s speech in Taipei, probably in a qualitatively significant way.”
Former Taiwanese leader Ma Ying-jeou, a member of the opposition Kuomintang (KMT), voiced concerns in a Meta post on March 14, warning that Lai’s speech “will lead to a major crisis and impact cross-strait relations as well as stability in the Taiwan Strait.”
I urge President Lai Ching-te to abide by the Constitution of the Republic of China, retract his statements on the “new two-state theory” and “hostile foreign forces,” and engage in peaceful dialogue with the Mainland region. He must not plunge the nation and its people into injustice and suffering.
The announcement made by President Lai Ching-te after convening the National Security Council meeting yesterday will lead to a major crisis and impact cross-strait relations as well as the situation in the Taiwan Strait.
First, the decision to reinstate military trials represents a reversal by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), contradicting its past stance. Is this fair to Hung Chung-chiu and those who initially supported reforms and human rights?
Second, the right of citizens to visit the Mainland and engage in religious exchanges is guaranteed by the Constitution. If the government intends to restrict people’s freedoms, it must do so through legal means; otherwise, it amounts to administrative dictatorship.
Third, and most importantly, President Lai has openly labeled the Mainland region as a “hostile foreign force,” violating the constitutional framework governing cross-strait relations and pushing the two sides into an unprecedentedly perilous situation. Since the 1991 repeal of the Temporary Provisions during the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion, the law no longer regards the Mainland as an enemy, and the two sides are no longer in a state of hostility. If President Lai seeks to alter the status quo and redefine cross-strait relations, he must amend the Constitution; otherwise, he must adhere to it.
I urge President Lai to immediately calm down, follow constitutional principles, and stabilize cross-strait relations to reassure the public and effectively address the current challenges. I solemnly call upon President Lai to recognize the gravity of this national crisis and challenge. He should convene a National Affairs Conference by inviting leaders from all political parties and respected figures from society. He must not act unilaterally, as doing so would cause unforeseeable harm to Taiwan’s internal stability and unity, as well as to our international relations and cross-strait ties.
While Ma Ying-jeou’s administration has long been portrayed as pro-China, Sean TX Wu, an academic-turned-scholar, reviewed in an opinion column what the KMT leader achieved in terms of sovereignty.
Lai Ching-te emphasizes “national sovereignty” above all, yet, ever since presidents are produced from democratic elections, it was during the Ma Ying-jeou administration that Taiwan’s de facto sovereignty was at its highest! Taiwan enjoyed the most visa-free agreements in history, with its passport ranking among the top 25 globally. Diplomatic relations were the most stable, and Taiwanese civil court rulings were recognized and adopted by EU countries. In terms of relations with the United States, Taiwan’s diplomatic personnel in the U.S. received upgraded treatment equivalent to that of official diplomatic allies. The U.S. even turned a blind eye, allowing Taiwan to raise its national flag inside its representative office with a military band performance!
Editorial from the United Daily News paper in Taipei, March 16
Trump and Xi Jinping are about to sit at the table, but Lai Ching-te has flipped it over in advance
President Lai Ching-te convened a high-level national security meeting, declaring China as an “external hostile force” and identifying five major national security threats along with seventeen countermeasures. He announced the reinstatement of the military trial system and imposed comprehensive restrictions on cross-strait exchanges, leading to an abrupt escalation in social tensions and hostility between Taiwan and the mainland. Even before the outbreak of conflict, Lai has pushed Taiwan into a quasi-war state; despite Taiwan having long moved past martial law, Lai is now summoning its specter once again. His actions serve not only to suppress democracy domestically through anti-China rhetoric and authoritarianism, as well as to fuel polarization and aid the recall campaign, but they also carry implications for both the United States and the Chinese mainland—albeit with high risks.
Just a month ago, President Lai also convened a high-level national security meeting, proposing national strategic plans on Taiwan-U.S. relations, semiconductor industry development, and cross-strait relations. However, within just a month, these strategic plans have failed the test. Lai’s proposed 「全球半導體民主供應鏈夥伴倡議」“Global Democratic Semiconductor Supply Chain Partnership Initiative” remains nowhere in sight, while Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) has already been drawn into Trump’s orbit, creating a major national security crisis—yet the Premier and the Minister of Economic Affairs, who are legally required to attend national security meetings, seem completely out of the loop. Last month, Lai also expressed a willingness to pursue cross-strait peace and prosperity with China, promoting orderly exchanges and replacing confrontation with dialogue. Now, however, he has designated China as a “hostile foreign force.”
As for Taiwan-U.S. relations, while they have yet to be placed on Trump’s White House desk, Lai had previously expressed hope for improved Taiwan-U.S. relations that could contribute to a positive cycle in U.S.-China ties—now, such hopes are even more unattainable. The notion of a positive cycle in Taiwan-U.S.-China relations was a feature of former President Ma Ying-jeou’s era. Given the turbulence inflicted on cross-strait relations from the Tsai administration to the Lai administration, it is remarkable that Lai still held such expectations. However, the rapid shift from hopes of a positive cycle to a zero-sum game within a month raises the question: was it that mainland China acted too swiftly, or that Lai’s national security team reacted too slowly?
In reality, while Lai’s national security team was busy drafting the “Lai Seventeen Measures,” the U.S. and China were engaged in negotiations regarding a meeting between Trump and Xi Jinping, with multiple exchanges taking place. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian stated that whatever battle the U.S. insists on fighting, China is prepared to meet it head-on. U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth responded that the U.S. is prepared but does not seek that war. Lin Jian then revised his statement, saying that no war should be fought, nor can any war be won. Meanwhile, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi criticized Trump as a “two-faced person” untrustworthy for establishing mutual trust and reaffirmed that “Taiwan’s only designation in the United Nations is China’s Taiwan Province.” However, shortly after, reports emerged of U.S.-China efforts to arrange a “birthday summit” between Xi and Trump, clearly indicating that both sides were accumulating bargaining chips and setting negotiation frameworks—especially China, which sought to draw red lines on the Taiwan issue.
At this critical moment, Lai Ching-te appears to be fighting on two fronts. Domestically, his “Lai Seventeen Measures” involve extensive investigations and crackdowns, seemingly searching for enemies within Taiwan. Externally, he moved preemptively before the mainland’s “20th Anniversary Forum on the Anti-Secession Law” to counteract Beijing. However, aside from a warning from the Taiwan Affairs Office that any crossing of red lines would result in decisive measures, the mainland’s forum largely reiterated its established stance of “punishing separatism according to law” and did not appear provoked by or responsive to Lai’s actions. Instead, Lai, wielding a historically altered version of the Republic of China and a new two-state theory, has declared China an foreign hostile force, further pushing cross-strait relations toward a quasi-war state.
Lai Ching-te also seems eager to make a dramatic move before the Trump-Xi meeting to attract Trump’s attention, hoping to draw the U.S. focus to the Taiwan Strait situation. However, the experiences of Ukraine and TSMC have reignited skepticism about U.S. reliability. Although American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Sandra Oudkirk reassured that the U.S. will not abandon Taiwan and that its commitment remains unchanged, and despite Trump stating several times that he does not want to see a Taiwan Strait conflict—believing that war will not happen—Trump has never explicitly guaranteed Taiwan’s security. With tensions spiraling ahead of the Trump-Xi meeting, this escalation may indeed place Taiwan on Trump’s negotiation table as a bargaining chip.
Under Trump’s expansionist and unilateral global strategy, the U.S.-China landscape is riddled with uncertainties, prompting Beijing to carefully navigate between offense and defense with strategic patience. In contrast, Lai’s actions appear reckless. While Trump and Xi prepare to sit down at the negotiating table, Lai has effectively flipped the table in advance, leaving Taiwan with no escape route. Given Ukraine’s lessons and the humiliation suffered by Zelensky, does Lai’s unilateral bet and table-flipping ultimately bring fortune or disaster to Taiwan?
Editorial from the China Times newspaper in Taipei, March 15
Why Is Lai Ching-te in Such a Hurry?
Lai Ching-te has personally stepped forward, claiming that the Chinese Communist Party’s infiltration is severe and explicitly defining the Chinese mainland as “hostile foreign forces,” escalating cross-strait tensions to an unprecedented level. Even during Tsai Ing-wen’s eight-year presidency, such aggressive moves were never made. Now, with the external environment still undergoing drastic changes, Lai has rushed to take action. His radical approach leaves many puzzled—what is the urgency behind his moves?
Since Trump took office, cross-strait relations have been full of uncertainty. However, Trump’s current focus is on the Russia-Ukraine war, while our government has been making frequent moves. First, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) was sent to the U.S., and now Lai Ching-te has declared that he will take severe measures against alleged infiltration by the Chinese Communist Party. What has happened to make him act so aggressively?
During Tsai’s eight years in office, strict measures were also taken against the Chinese mainland, including the passage of the Anti-Infiltration Act, which imposed numerous stringent restrictions. However, even though the definition of “hostile foreign forces” was there, it was never explicitly stated. Yet, less than a year into his presidency, Lai has directly defined the Chinese mainland as such. What intelligence does he possess that has made him so eager to take action?
The most active operation by the Ministry of the Interior recently has been investigating whether Taiwanese citizens hold mainland household registrations. This crackdown originated from a whistleblowing claim by an internet influencer, Ba Jiong. However, the investigation did not yield the exaggerated results claimed, and in the end, the focus had to shift to Chinese mainland spouses and children of Taiwanese businesspeople. The fact that a major national security issue, personally announced by the President, originated from an influencer’s allegations is astonishing—no matter which country it happens in.
Anyone with a basic understanding of cross-strait affairs knows that some Chinese spouses or children of Taiwanese businesspeople may have mainland household registrations—this is unsurprising. Many of them did not acquire it by personal choice but due to systemic arrangements. The government had never pursued this issue for years, yet now it is suddenly conducting a purge, even to the extent that some families may be torn apart. Can such actions still be considered part of a democratic country?
What the people want to know is this: What intelligence does Lai’s national security team possess that indicates the Chinese Communist Party is about to take immediate actions threatening Taiwan’s security? If there is no solid evidence or intelligence but only sudden harsh measures and an adversarial stance, it will only cause public anxiety. Without concrete proof, yet escalating tensions to this level, it is reasonable to suspect that this is yet another “anti-China, protect Taiwan” maneuver orchestrated for the upcoming recall campaigns.