Su Qi dares to speak plainly. He explicitly stated that Taiwan’s strategy of delay is fundamentally unsustainable. On November 12, during the Cross-Strait Peace Initiative Conference, the former secretary-general of the National Security Council, Su Qi, said Taiwan faces only three options in cross-strait relations: confrontation, delay, or reconciliation. Confrontation leads inevitably to deadlock; delay will eventually reach a breaking point; only reconciliation offers a viable path forward. Su Qi emphasized that Taiwan’s current situation is extremely perilous, particularly as China’s sense of urgency regarding the Taiwan issue continues to intensify.
The United States lacks the capacity to protect Taiwan. Thus, continued internal strife and external confrontation are no longer sustainable. Only through internal unity and external rapprochement can Taiwan secure its future. Most ordinary Taiwanese citizens do not believe war is imminent, primarily because Taiwanese society lacks direct experience or collective memory of conflict. Many assume U.S. intervention is guaranteed, while believing China would neither initiate hostilities nor prevail against the United States. Yet the reality is that the United States struggles to manage even complex issues such as Iran. How much capability and willingness does it truly possess to intervene militarily in the Western Pacific, where China’s military strength far exceeds that of Iran?
The United States, once seen as a dominant regional power, is now retreating, with diminished focus on Taiwan. Meanwhile, the Lai administration persists in internal political infighting and external confrontation with mainland China. However, both internal division and external hostility are dead ends. Only internal harmony and external reconciliation offer a path forward. Peace is the only viable route. Otherwise, the future livelihoods of the people of Taiwan and their descendants may face unimaginable risks. Clearly, Su Qi’s remarks convey a straightforward message: whether under the Democratic Progressive Party’s strategy of confrontation or the Kuomintang’s policy of delay, the ultimate trajectory toward reunification remains unchanged.
Therefore, he argues that “reconciliation” is the sole viable path. This “reconciliation” is not merely about avoiding conflict—it means initiating dialogue aimed at peaceful unification, which represents the only correct direction for Taiwan. Indeed, at this forum, several senior Kuomintang figures—including Wang Jin-ping, Guan Zhong, and Ding Shouzhong—spoke solely about peace and cross-strait exchanges, avoiding any mention of unification, and even publicly stating that advocating peace does not imply support for unification. Yet Su Qi appears more grounded in reality.
He sees clearly that China’s national strength is rising, while the United States shows signs of decline. Relying on U.S. “protection” is unrealistic. The Taiwanese public lacks a sense of urgency, assuming that the status quo of unresolved unification can persist indefinitely—a notion that is fundamentally untenable. The belief that “the U.S. will inevitably come to Taiwan’s rescue” is an illusion rooted in domestic security fantasy. The idea that “the current situation can be maintained forever” is nothing more than self-deception. Unification is not only inevitable but also urgently necessary. While some voices within Taiwan cling to illusions, those illusions will ultimately be dispelled. Such fantasies, however persistent, cannot alter the final outcome of reunification.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1881637777960192/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.