The Office of Taiwan Affairs under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council's Taiwan Affairs Office issued a statement early yesterday morning, rushing to set the tone before President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) inauguration speech on May 20. The statement raises the bar a lot higher in terms of talking peace. Chen's speech, therefore, can only aim to maintain stability by defending the status quo.
Its content is numbingly familiar. It slams Chen's "five noes" and trumpets its "seven lines," leaving itself pinned to a "one China" framework. China's resolve to "never sit idly by" at the prospect of Taiwanese independence and its military chest-beating will appeal neither to the Taiwanese nor the international ear.
The statement does, however, bring Chinese intentions into sharper relief. Its release on the eve of the World Health Assembly's Geneva meeting, where Taiwan's push for observer status is again a cause for embarrassment, is meant to head off anger after the likely veto of the bid. Repeating its warning that only by accepting the "one China" principle will negotiations commence on "the issue of international living space of the Taiwan region," the Chinese added it would do its utmost to block any diplomatic step forward Taiwan takes.
The timing also reveals a degree of haste by addressing cross-strait relations in advance of Chen's speech. China now seems to have no faith in Chen's "five noes," if it ever did. On the other hand, China equates the plan to write a new constitution by 2006 with the push for Taiwanese independence as a whole. This warning is simply a clumsy attempt to influence the drafting of the speech.
There was a token mention of Chen's proposals, such as establishing a mechanism for mutual trust
in military affairs and constructing a framework for peace and stability, but the statement cannot redeem the browbeating line that as long as China unifies with or annexes Taiwan, everything will be just fine. Beijing still expects this country to renounce every right that it is entitled to as a state in exchange for a promise that the People's Liberation Army will keep its distance and that some participation in the international community will be tolerated.
As Hong Kong has shown us, reunification with China amounts to the implementation of "one China" policies and the bankruptcy of the "two systems" promise, sweetened by the retention of a limited democracy. The Hong Kong model does not appeal to Taiwanese people.
China's statement is a predictable but insubstantial warning to the Taiwanese people and the Chen administration. It offers no solutions for the cross-strait impasse. Taiwan, therefore, need not be overly concerned about the statement's repetitions and unfriendliness.
China's economy is a much more pressing crisis. Cross-strait tension, in comparison, is a longstanding issue that requires some attention but which will not be resolved overnight.
China has showed its cards -- prematurely. There is no need for Chen to respond to the statement. If he does, it would seem Pavlovian rather than strategically sound. Chen should instead outline a framework under which cross-strait peace could be achieved. This is the real challenge for his next term.
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS