Cross-strait charter flights for the Lunar New Year have not even got off the ground before running into turbulence. After the Taipei Airlines Association, the government's aviation representative, met Chinese officials in Macau to discuss the flights for the Lunar New Year, a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation departed for Beijing to hold talks with officials of the Taiwan Affairs Office under the State Council and the Civil Aviation Administration of China. The issue has given China another opportunity to exploit disagreement between the Democratic Progressive Party and the KMT.
No matter what the KMT delegation proposes or promises, and no matter what the Chinese officials say, the government should stand firm on national security and dignity.
First, Beijing has refused to negotiate directly with the government, as well as refusing to meet official and semi-official organizations such as the Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Straits Exchange Foundation. China has placed the negotiations on a lower footing than those formulated for the "Hong Kong model" for flights between Taiwan and Hong Kong in 2002. With China setting the agenda, the result will be detrimental to the security, interests and dignity of Taiwan.
Second, the results of the "negotiations" run a real risk of contradicting government policy and doing more harm than good. The operation of these flights for Taiwanese businesspeople based in China is not something of value to most Taiwanese, but rather a concession out of good will to an influential but barely grateful pro-KMT minority. The government must therefore know when to cut its losses, pull out of the "negotiations" and cancel the deal. Trips home by Taiwanese businesspeople for the holidays are a private matter and should be arranged ahead of time.
This year, the flights are being used to promote the "Sinification" of Taiwan's economy and even government itself. It is a classic example of China using commerce for political ends, and using all-too-willing members of the opposition against the government.
Will the charter flights impact on Taiwan's security? It is possible that the flights this time will be "non-stop, round-trip, multi-destination flights by carriers on both sides," and as such the impact could be significant. Because the flights are no longer restricted to Taiwanese businesspeople, the result is direct flights in fact, if not in name. Once this door is opened, Taiwan could lose more industry and capital to China. If this happens, there will be nowhere to turn.
Since the Chinese government is now in a position to choose who it will discuss these details with, it can accelerate attempts to drive a deeper wedge between the government and the KMT, the latter still believing itself to be Taiwan's de facto government, though it should be noted that the People First Party has showed little enthusiasm for the KMT delegation's visit.
The government must be firm and clear on when to pull out. If the arrangements for the flights and China's propaganda impact on the safety and dignity of the nation, then the "negotiations" must stop immediately.
This country cannot sacrifice the security interests of the majority to serve the temporary convenience of a well-funded minority.
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,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
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