Why Did Xi Jinping "Name" Lai Ching-te During His Peru Meeting?

Lai Ching-te delivers his victory speech at an international press conference (Photo by Song Bilong/Dajiyuan)

[People News] According to reports from Chinese state media, during the “Biden-Xi Summit” held in Peru on November 16, Xi Jinping addressed the Taiwan issue with the following statement: "The separatist acts of 'Taiwan independence' are irreconcilable with peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. If the U.S. wants to maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait, the key lies in recognizing the 'Taiwan independence' nature of Lai Ching-te and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities, handling the Taiwan issue with extreme caution, clearly opposing 'Taiwan independence,' and supporting China's peaceful unification."

At last November’s “Biden-Xi Summit,” Xi Jinping stated: "The Taiwan issue has always been the most important and sensitive matter in China-U.S. relations. China values the positive statements made by the U.S. during the Bali meeting. The U.S. should translate its stance of not supporting 'Taiwan independence' into concrete actions, stop arming Taiwan, and support China’s peaceful unification. China will ultimately achieve unification—it is both inevitable and certain."

Compared to last year’s tough stance and slogan-filled rhetoric, Xi’s wording this year appears somewhat softened, omitting slogans and merely urging the U.S. to handle the Taiwan issue "with extreme caution." This is likely a message directed at the incoming Trump administration, given Trump’s previous hardline statements.

However, as Biden rejected Xi’s demands last year, it is highly likely that the Trump administration, known for its clear-eyed understanding of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), would do the same. Beijing’s current inability to establish effective communication with the Trump team underscores this point.

Notably, unlike past instances where senior CCP officials avoided directly naming Taiwan’s leaders in international settings, this time state media explicitly reported that Xi mentioned Lai Ching-te during the “Biden-Xi Summit.” However, U.S. briefings on the meeting contained no reference to Xi mentioning Lai.

Additionally, Taiwan’s officials clarified that relevant agencies had confirmed with the U.S. side that, whether in public or private discussions, Xi had not mentioned Lai Ching-te. Taiwan’s National Security Bureau Director Tsai Ming-yen suggested this could be part of a CCP propaganda and cognitive warfare campaign.

So why would Chinese state media fabricate this mention of Lai Ching-te? The answer lies in the impact of Lai’s actions since assuming office as Taiwan’s president. His policies have repeatedly "hit a nerve" for the CCP, intensifying resistance to Beijing’s efforts to unify Taiwan through military or political means.

For instance, Lai’s remarks at the Republic of China National Day celebration on October 5 in Taipei had a significant impact, one that likely deepened the CCP's animosity toward him. It is not surprising that the CCP would "detest him to the core."

At the time, Lai Ching-te remarked that while the People's Republic of China (PRC) had just celebrated its 75th anniversary, the Republic of China (ROC) would soon mark its 113th anniversary. He quipped: "In terms of age, the PRC is absolutely impossible to be the 'motherland' of the people of the ROC. On the contrary, the ROC could be the motherland for PRC citizens over 75 years old." He also pointedly reminded, "If anyone wants to wish the PRC a happy birthday, make sure the congratulatory message is precise—do not use the term 'motherland'."

This statement reaffirmed Lai's cross-strait stance, articulated during his inaugural speech, that the ROC and PRC are "mutually non-subordinate." Lai is the first Taiwanese president to explicitly clarify the relationship between the ROC and PRC in such terms.

The CCP neither could nor dared to respond directly to Lai’s remarks. Instead, it swiftly removed related videos and even online insults from Chinese netizens attacking "Taiwan independence." However, outside of China, many netizens praised Lai's statements: "This is a simple fact." "No flaws here—clear and logical." "Well said. The CCP should first figure out who the 'father' is."

Around the same time as the Biden-Xi meeting, Lai participated in Taiwan’s CommonWealth Youth Forum. When asked by students whether he could lead the country toward peace and avoid war, Lai outlined three approaches to achieving peace based on Taiwan's political spectrum: Signing a peace treaty (the "Tibetan model") – This involves not insisting on sovereignty, akin to Tibet's arrangement with China. Accepting the "1992 Consensus" (the "Hong Kong-Macau model") – Adopting Beijing’s "One China" principle, which would place Taiwan under the same framework as Hong Kong and Macau. Insisting on sovereignty and democracy – Upholding Taiwan's democratic and constitutional system, maintaining that the ROC and PRC are mutually non-subordinate, and asserting that Taiwan's future must be determined by its 23 million people. To achieve this, Lai emphasized strengthening defense, economic resilience, and aligning with democratic allies worldwide to preserve Taiwan’s democratic way of life.

When students were asked to choose among these options, the vast majority supported the third path of "Four Firm Principles": Upholding Taiwan’s sovereignty; Safeguarding democracy and freedom; Maintaining constitutional governance; Ensuring Taiwan’s future is decided by its own people.

Upon seeing their choice, Lai affirmed that this was also the path he would pursue as president. He expressed hope that he and the younger generation could work together, united and determined, to move toward this goal of peace.

Undoubtedly, more and more Taiwanese people have come to understand that any compromise with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would only lead to an outcome similar to that of Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau.

In 1951, the Central People's Government of China and Tibet's Gashag (referred to in the agreement as the Tibetan local government) signed the Agreement on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet. Both parties agreed to Tibet's "peaceful liberation," granting the CCP actual control over the region. Subsequently, the CCP's military entered Tibet.

Initially, the CCP adopted conciliatory policies to gain the trust of Tibetan aristocrats and monks. However, after 1955, influenced by internal mainland movements, CCP cadres and troops in Tibet, under the pretext of overthrowing the "three great feudal lords," began destroying numerous monasteries and forcing monks to return to secular life, which fueled Tibetan resentment.

In March 1959, armed clashes broke out between Tibetans and the CCP military in regions such as Tibet and Qinghai. The Tibetans faced brutal suppression, and the Dalai Lama, along with the Tibetan government and a large number of Tibetans, fled to India, where they established the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. The Panchen Lama was also imprisoned for authoring the 70,000-Character Petition. To this day, Tibet lacks religious freedom.

Similarly, Deng Xiaoping’s promise of "one country, two systems, unchanged for 50 years" for Hong Kong and Macau now rings hollow. Just two decades after their handovers, both regions have been "red-ified." Freedoms such as speech and protest have been stripped away, and Hong Kong, once the "Pearl of Asia," has become a shadow of its former self. All of this is thanks to the CCP’s actions.

The CCP's oppressive policies in Tibet, Hong Kong, and mainland China have not gone unnoticed by the Taiwanese people. Any Taiwanese citizen unwilling to lose their existing freedoms will choose to uphold Taiwan’s constitutional system and resist the CCP. They understand that compromise would mean that Taiwan’s future could mirror the current realities of Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau. Thus, the CCP's direct naming of Lai Ching-te and its psychological warfare attempts to intimidate him are unlikely to succeed. Under the clear-eyed leadership of Lai and the awareness of the Taiwanese people, such tactics from the CCP will have little effect.