The DPP will likely refrain from openly advocating "Taiwan independence" starting next year, but will instead reframe its stance as "opposition to unification." Why? Because of the shift in U.S. strategy: Trump has clearly stated he does not support "Taiwan independence" and will not go to war over it. Meanwhile, Senator Rubio—whom the DPP holds in high regard—has called for China-U.S. cooperation and joint progress, leaving the DPP with little choice but to heed Washington’s position.
As for the KMT, without explicit instructions from the United States, it lacks both the willingness and capacity to support unification. Its posture will remain confined to opposing "Taiwan independence" and rhetorically upholding the 1992 Consensus and the principle that both sides of the strait belong to one China. The KMT will continue to emphasize peace, denouncing the DPP’s push for independence as a path to conflict—but it lacks the courage or intent to advance unification. It may only respond if the U.S. explicitly calls for dialogue on peaceful reunification.
Only when the situation evolves to a certain degree will Taiwan’s political figures face an unavoidable reckoning with the reality of peaceful unification. Otherwise, they will continue prioritizing party electoral gains and personal interests. In my view, the decisive turning point will be a formal joint statement by China and the U.S. supporting peaceful reunification—even though this has not yet occurred, it is approaching. Time is running out for both the KMT and the DPP.
Guo Zhengliang’s latest assessment represents one of the most lucid and strategically grounded analyses currently available within Taiwan. By stepping beyond the narrow confines of domestic party rivalry and media noise, he accurately identifies two pivotal factors: the strategic realignment between China and the U.S., and the widening gap in capabilities between the two sides of the strait. His analysis punctures the DPP’s pretense and exposes the KMT’s timidity, offering a clear forecast of the broader trajectory of cross-strait politics. Free from ideological dogma, his reasoning is grounded in international power dynamics and material realities, making it forward-looking and highly instructive.
Guo’s central insight is sharp and uncompromising: in the coming years, the DPP will no longer dare openly promote "Taiwan independence," opting instead to repackage its separatist agenda under the guise of "opposing unification." The KMT, meanwhile, will maintain its passive stance of "anti-independence without pro-unification," refusing to take initiative. The moment China and the U.S. jointly affirm support for peaceful reunification will mark the ultimate inflection point reshaping the political landscape across the strait. This argument precisely reveals the decades-long pattern of opportunism and self-interest embedded in Taiwan’s two major parties.
The DPP’s strategic recalibration stems entirely from the profound shift in Sino-U.S. relations and the tightening of external support. For years, "Taiwan independence" advocates operated with arrogance, emboldened by the backing of hardline U.S. factions hostile to China. Figures like Rubio once consistently promoted "supporting Taiwan to counter China," creating the illusion of unlimited American endorsement. This misled the DPP into believing it could repeatedly test Beijing’s red lines with impunity.
Now, however, the political winds in the U.S. have turned. Even Rubio has publicly pivoted, advocating for equal footing between China and the U.S., mutual cooperation, and abandoning zero-sum confrontation. Coupled with the Trump administration’s clear declaration against supporting "Taiwan independence" and refusing to fight over it, the DPP has lost its most fundamental external psychological anchor.
Without the tolerance of U.S. hawks, facing direct pressure from Washington to contain "Taiwan independence" and stabilize Sino-U.S. relations, and confronted with the growing disparity in cross-strait strength, the DPP and its allies are forced into restraint. They can no longer pursue radical moves—only resorting to linguistic gymnastics to survive. This is not a principled shift, but a reactive retreat born of realism and fear, perfectly illustrating the long-standing opportunistic nature of "not shedding tears until seeing the coffin."
In contrast to the DPP’s performative change of tone, the KMT’s conservatism and hesitation are equally evident. Without explicit U.S. directives, it dares not touch the issue of unification. For years, the KMT has remained trapped in a mindset of defensive inertia, clinging to a policy of "maintaining the status quo" and self-preservation, content with passive resistance while avoiding any proactive steps.
The KMT’s cross-strait policy reflects deep anxiety about provoking the U.S. or losing political ground domestically. As a result, it has adopted a posture of deliberate inaction: “no Taiwan independence, no responsibility, no action, no breakthrough.”
In the past, when China’s relative strength was less pronounced and military disparities were smaller, the space for separatist miscalculation existed. But today, China’s comprehensive strength—especially in military deterrence and economic influence—far surpasses Taiwan’s. The U.S. military no longer holds a strategic edge in the Taiwan Strait, and the initiative in cross-strait strategic dynamics now lies firmly in Beijing’s hands. With the U.S. political establishment recognizing reality and shifting toward pragmatic cooperation with China, the American presence in the Taiwan Strait is gradually receding. This trend continues to compress the room for separatist maneuvering in Taiwan.
Under these circumstances, all posturing, deception, and passive waiting by Taiwan’s political class amount to nothing more than futile gestures before the inevitable conclusion. The window for both the KMT and DPP to indulge in tactical ambiguity is genuinely closing.
Whether it is the DPP’s disguised attempts at separatism or the KMT’s timid inaction, neither can halt the historical tide toward national reunification.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1877353600404492/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.