Kuomintang(KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) came to New York prepared for a fight — and she got one.
On the evening of June 8 (Eastern Time), Cheng appeared at the Asia Society's Manhattan headquarters for the only publicly scheduled event of her U.S. visit featuring American interlocutors. The forum brought together two of Washington's most seasoned China hands: former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel R. Russel, now affiliated with the Asia Society, and Orville Schell (夏偉), former dean of the University of California, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism and also currently with the organisation. Together, they subjected Cheng to pointed questioning on cross-strait peace, the KMT's vision for Taiwan's future, and what her party would actually do if it returned to power in 2028.
Cheng gave no ground.
"I Am Not Just a Dreamer. I Also Have a Roadmap."
The skepticism in the room was unmistakable. Against a backdrop of deep mutual mistrust between Washington and Beijing, the American participants pressed Cheng repeatedly on whether cross-strait dialogue is genuinely feasible — and whether the KMT's stated positions would hold up under real pressure from China.
Cheng's response was methodical. She acknowledged the obstacles plainly. But when Schell characterised her cross-strait vision as idealistic and called her a dreamer, she pushed back without hesitation: she has a concrete roadmap, not a wish list.
To make the point, she reached for a historical analogy. The European Union, she noted, did not emerge from the wreckage of the Second World War as a finished project. It took decades of painstaking, incremental institution-building — through the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Common Market, and eventually the European Community — before today's EU took shape. That process absorbed serious setbacks, including the rupture of Brexit. Cross-strait arrangements, she argued, would require comparable patience, gradualism, and a tolerance for temporary reversals.
She was candid about the limits of her own certainty. She does not know whether the goal of cross-strait peace is ultimately achievable. But she was direct about her strategic reasoning: so far, she said, she has been unable to identify a more pragmatic approach than the one she is proposing — one capable of foreclosing the possibility that the Taiwan Strait dispute is resolved through coercion or military force. "Because that," she said, "is the real reality."
The KMT's Constitutional Position — and Its Limits
On the KMT's formal cross-strait stance, Cheng was precise. The party has consistently opposed Taiwan independence and upholds the Constitution of the Republic of China — which she described as a "one-China constitution." The so-called 1992 Consensus, she argued, is fully consistent with that constitutional framework and with the principle that both sides of the strait belong to one China.
But she drew a clear line. The cross-strait relationship the KMT envisions is not one requiring either side to sacrifice its institutions, make unilateral concessions, or abandon its own political system. Nor does she accept the premise that cross-strait peace requires Taiwan to give up its democracy, rule of law, or the foundations of its civil society.
When Schell pressed her on Hong Kong — and on whether Taiwan might one day face a similar trajectory — Cheng drew a sharp historical distinction. Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997, returned to China by the United Kingdom. Taiwan's situation is categorically different: Japanese colonial rule ended in 1945, when Japan restored Taiwan to China — meaning the Republic of China — after the Second World War. The implication, she said, is unambiguous: "No one can hand Taiwan back to mainland China."
On Trump, Xi, and What Washington Owes the Region
Cheng offered a notably positive assessment of U.S. President Donald Trump's recent visit to Beijing and the Trump-Xi summit, expressing hope that the two powers could begin to build mutual trust through sustained engagement, and move away from Cold War thinking and zero-sum logic.
When Russel asked — somewhat pointedly — what Trump should learn from her if they ever met, Cheng deflected the framing but was candid about her view: "I wouldn't presume to say he should learn from me. But I do think President Trump took an important step with his Beijing visit. I hope he does not waste the more than two years he has left in office."
Her argument was strategic, not flattering. Successfully managing relations with East Asia and with China, she said, is central to any credible vision of making America great again. A direct U.S.-China confrontation — or worse, a war — "would not make America greater. It would bring devastating consequences." She urged both capitals to pursue trust-building through engagement and leave behind the zero-sum frameworks that have dominated the relationship.
She went further on Trump's potential historical legacy. If he can exercise American leadership to transform this region from one defined by conflict and the threat of war into one defined by dialogue and a durable peace, she argued, every country in the region would benefit — and the United States would benefit most of all. Under those conditions, she suggested, Trump could be judged the most consequential leader of the 21st century.
She also made explicit what was implicit throughout the evening: American backing is not optional. Whether Washington supports her and the KMT will be decisive to whether cross-strait peace can succeed. "A stable and peaceful cross-strait relationship is in very great need of American support," she said. "That is why this trip to the United States is so important — for me, for the KMT, and especially for Taiwan."
"Time Is Not on Taiwan's Side"
Responding to the forum's persistent undercurrent of skepticism, Cheng did not retreat into optimism. She was blunt about the stakes and the urgency.
"I know perfectly well that cross-strait peace is extremely difficult and that there are very many challenges to overcome," she said. "But in Taiwan, we have no choice. We must exhaust every effort to ensure that peace happens."
The alternative, in her view, is that Taiwan becomes a battlefield — and everything Taiwan has built, everything it has achieved, is reduced to rubble. The next generation of young Taiwanese would bear the cost on that battlefield. And the clock, she said, is not standing still. "Time is not on Taiwan's side. I am very clear about that."
On the question of conditions for any future change, Cheng was equally unambiguous: any shift in the cross-strait status quo must reflect the will of the people on both sides and must be acceptable to both — and that necessarily includes the will of the Taiwanese people. Their voice, she said, must be respected.
Russel, closing the forum, offered a measured compliment: whatever one makes of her goals, "the energy, passion, and optimism you have shown is impressive." He wished her luck for the Washington leg of the trip — drawing laughter from the audience.
Cheng closed by invoking the KMT's record. The party, she said, is one that has manufactured "miracles" before — at least five times throughout its history. It overthrew the Qing dynasty and established Asia's first democratic republic. It defeated Japan in the Second World War. After retreating to Taiwan, it produced the island's economic miracle, shepherded a peaceful democratic transition, and built the semiconductor industry that now underpins global technology supply chains.
"Things that people thought were impossible, the KMT made happen," she said. "So we will walk the path of peace with conviction — and create the next miracle: cross-strait peace."
