American Institute in Taipei Director Douglas Paal visited Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
According to Ma, Paal said that uncertainties in cross-strait relations create inconveniences for American businesspeople in Taiwan who also do business in China. Ma said Paal told him the number of American Chamber of Commerce Taipei members is dropping. He reportedly told Ma that if cross-strait contacts were more convenient, foreign businesses would be more willing to stay.
In view of Taiwan's precarious international status, the more foreign business interests here, the better. So why are foreign businesspeople leaving? It seems reasonable to interpret Paal's remarks as encouraging and supporting direct links. Of course, that kind of position coming from the AIT director is understandable. But are Paal's comments also representative of the US government's stance on direct links? If so, then the question becomes what is the US willing to offer to help direct links become a reality.
The government has been extremely cautious about opening direct links because of national security concerns. It must give priority to the lives of the people and the nation's survival. This is something surely Washington can understand, given its commitment and determination to combat terrorism at home and abroad despite an economic downturn. Paal was certainly right when he said, during a recent speech on the impact of the Sept. 11 attack on US policies, that a secure and confident Taiwan will be more able to to engage in political interaction and dialogues with China.
Taiwan's problem is simply that it does not feel confident and secure enough to open up direct links. So, if either or both the US and Beijing, at Washington's behest, can give Taiwan even more confidence and sense of security through either additional promises or substantive actions, thing will more than likely be entirely different. Until then, Taiwan won't feel ready.
However, the government must also shoulder responsibility for the departure of foreign businesses. As much as one hates to admit it, the biggest vulnerability of President Chen Shui-bian's (
But what are we to make of Ma's reporting of his talk with Paal? Traditionally the content of such closed-door meetings is not disclosed. Ma broke protocol by doing so. One has to wonder why? Was it perhaps because Paal's comments -- as reported by Ma -- closely fit with the mayor's own agenda? There has been much made in the past week of Ma's rising star in the KMT and his possible presidential ambitions. Perhaps he would do well to remember that diplomacy is a key element of the nation's top job and that includes knowing when to talk and when not to. After all, Paal, like his predecessors, must walk a fine line about what they can say publicly about Taiwan, about China and about direct links. AIT has its own spokesperson -- it doesn't need another in Taipei.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS