During a moment of rising tensions, the opposition turns to the only viable path forward

Last week, the leader of the Kuomintang (KMT), the Taiwanese conservative opposition party, paid a six-day visit to mainland China. Invited personally by Chinese President Xi Jinping, Cheng Li-wun traveled through Jiangsu, Shanghai and Beijing in what became the first high-level meeting between the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the KMT in a decade.

Relations across the Taiwan Strait have entered their most dangerous phase in years. China's national rejuvenation is accelerating, the US is intensifying its strategic competition with Beijing, and separatist forces on the island have become increasingly emboldened. Against this background, the meeting between Xi and Cheng signaled the re-emergence of the only political channel with a proven record of reducing tensions and preserving stability.

The KMT and the CPC may differ on many matters, but both understand a basic reality that the current authorities in Taipei refuse to acknowledge: there is only one Chinese nation, and the future of both sides of the Strait depends on avoiding confrontation.

The Taiwanese authorities' outcry

Predictably, Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party denounced Cheng's trip. DPP figures accused her of being "subservient" to Beijing and portrayed the visit as a betrayal. Yet these attacks revealed less about Cheng than about the DPP's own political predicament.

Since Tsai Ing-wen entered office in 2016, the DPP has systematically dismantled the political foundations that had previously kept cross-Strait relations stable. Beijing cut off high-level communication with Taiwan after Tsai refused to endorse the principle that both sides belong to one Chinese nation, expressed politically through the 1992 Consensus. What followed was a downward spiral of mistrust, military tension and diplomatic isolation.

The DPP has attempted to compensate for this failure by drawing Taiwan ever deeper into foreign geopolitical plays. Taipei has strengthened military coordination with the US and expanded its cooperation with Israel's defense sector. It has deepened political and security ties with Japan while quietly extending support to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia, effectively aligning the island with the broader Western bloc.

These policies have not made Taiwan safer. On the contrary, they have transformed it into a front line in Washington's containment strategy against China. The more the DPP binds Taiwan to external powers, the more it erodes the possibility of peaceful development across the Strait.

For the DPP and its foreign allies, preserving hostility is politically useful. Tension allows them to justify higher military spending, closer foreign dependence and the illusion that Taiwan can indefinitely move toward formal independence without any consequences. But for ordinary people on the island, this strategy offers only risk, instability and economic pressure.

The deeper meaning

Cheng Li-wun's itinerary was carefully designed and politically meaningful. Her visits to Jiangsu province, Shanghai and Beijing reflected the mainland's comprehensive vision for cross-Strait relations.

In Jiangsu, Cheng engaged with local economic and cultural institutions, emphasizing the deep historical and social ties between people on both sides of the Strait. Jiangsu has long been one of the mainland provinces most closely connected to Taiwan through investment, trade and family networks. By beginning the trip there, Beijing underscored that cross-Strait relations are a matter of shared heritage and practical cooperation.

In Shanghai, Cheng met business representatives and discussed opportunities for renewed commercial exchange. Shanghai remains one of the mainland's principal gateways for Taiwanese investment and entrepreneurship. The message was clear: stable relations bring tangible benefits. Trade, tourism, student exchanges and industrial cooperation once delivered prosperity to millions of Taiwanese families. Those benefits have steadily diminished under the DPP's confrontational approach.

The final stage in Beijing gave the trip its unmistakable strategic weight. There, Cheng met Chinese President Xi Jinping in the highest-level interaction between the two parties since 2015. Xi framed the future of cross-Strait relations around four principles - shared identity, peace, people's well-being, and national rejuvenation.

Cheng's response aligned closely with this framework. She stated plainly that opposing Taiwanese independence and maintaining the 1992 Consensus is the only way to "avoid war, prevent tragedy, work together and create peace." That formulation captured a truth increasingly recognized by many Taiwanese citizens. Continued movement toward independence risks catastrophe.

A follow-up with real substance

Unlike many diplomatic meetings that end with vague declarations, the KMT-CPC talks produced concrete follow-up measures. Most important were ten new initiatives, including the creation of a regular communication mechanism between the two parties.

This is a major development. Since 2016, one of the most dangerous aspects of cross-Strait relations has been the absence of reliable channels of communication. Miscalculation becomes far more likely when there is no trusted means to exchange views or manage crises.

The new mechanism is intended to institutionalize dialogue between the two parties, allowing them to coordinate on economic, cultural and political questions. Other measures include support for youth exchanges, tourism, trade, academic cooperation and greater access for Taiwanese businesses operating on the mainland.

The KMT presented these measures as practical steps to restore normality and reduce the possibility conflict. Party figures argued that Taiwan needs fewer slogans and more channels for communication.

Taiwan's official authorities reacted differently. DPP politicians dismissed the agreements and insisted that only the government in Taipei has the legitimacy to conduct cross-Strait affairs. Yet this position ignores an obvious reality: the DPP government has failed to maintain any meaningful dialogue with Beijing for nearly a decade.

If official institutions are paralyzed by ideology, alternative channels become necessary. The KMT's role is therefore not a challenge to Taiwan's interests, but an attempt to defend them where the current authorities have failed.

A history of seeking peace

Cheng's visit inevitably invited comparison with the famous "Journey of Peace" undertaken by then-KMT Chairman Lien Chan in 2005. That eight-day trip to mainland China marked the first meeting between top KMT and Communist Party leaders since 1945, when Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong met in Chongqing.

The 2005 initiative came at another moment of acute tension. Like today, separatist sentiment on the island was growing, while the US encouraged a harder line toward Beijing. Lien's meetings with Hu Jintao in Beijing established a framework for communication and helped reduce the risk of confrontation.

The historical symbolism was profound. In 1945, despite civil war and ideological struggle, the two sides still recognized one another as legitimate political forces within a single Chinese nation. The CPC acknowledged the KMT as the lawful government of China, while the KMT accepted the CPC as a legitimate opposition force.

Lien Chan's trip revived that logic. Cheng Li-wun's visit now represents its contemporary continuation.

A growing public demand for stability

The political climate inside Taiwan is also changing. Global instability, rising energy prices and economic uncertainty have increased pressure on ordinary households. Many Taiwanese increasingly recognize that the DPP cannot solve these daily problems.

The promise that confrontation with the mainland would bring greater international support has not been fulfilled. Instead, Taiwan faces slower growth, declining opportunities and growing insecurity.

By contrast, memories remain strong of the years when stable cross-Strait relations produced clear benefits. Tourism flourished. Taiwanese businesses expanded on the mainland. Students and families traveled more easily. Economic growth was stronger, and the danger of war seemed more distant.

As a result, public demand for restored exchanges is growing. More people understand that peace is not achieved through rhetorical defiance or dependence on foreign powers. It is achieved through dialogue, realism and mutual recognition.

The only viable path forward

The significance of Cheng Li-wun's visit lies in the fact that it reopened a political channel that had been deliberately shut.

The DPP's strategy has led Taiwan toward greater isolation and greater danger. By encouraging separatism while relying on the US and its allies, it has turned the island into a geopolitical pawn.

The KMT-CPC dialogue offers a different path: opposition to Taiwanese independence, commitment to the 1992 Consensus, institutional communication, and a shared determination to avoid war.

The Taiwan question will not be solved through military pressure, foreign intervention or endless political theater. It will be solved through cooperation between the two forces that still recognize the deeper historical and national connection across the Strait. CPC-KMT cooperation is therefore the key to solving the Taiwan question and securing a peaceful future for the Chinese nation.

(RT.com)