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 Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS