Yesterday's march was indeed the best response that Taiwan could make in the wake of the passage of the Chinese "Anti-Secession" Law. With a simple and easy to understand theme of "peace, democracy, save Taiwan," as well as a high turn out rate (it is estimated that around one million people joined the march) accomplished through mostly voluntary grass-roots participation, Beijing has been put in an awkward spot.
A golden rule that must never be forgotten in Taiwan's dealing with China is this: Democracy, freedom and human rights are the best weapons that Taiwan has against China. No amount of military spending -- although that is critically necessary as well -- comes even close in terms of the weight of the punch. That's because these things are universally accepted values, but also because they represent everything that China isn't. They are like a mirror that reflects the autocratic and militant nature of the Beijing regime. Even more importantly, they serve as justification for the international community to voice their support. Yesterday's march was a success precisely because it highlighted all these precious virtues.
However, one must now ask this difficult question: Now that Beijing has been given the message, what happens next? The demonstration of the popular will yesterday was critically needed, because it will probably make the Chinese government pause or even halt if they face a decision on whether to unilaterally impose unification on Taiwan. However, the enactment of the Anti-Secession Law has become a fact. As much as one hates to admit this, the likelihood of Beijing "taking it back" is next to impossible.
On Thursday, the chairman of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Su Tseng-chang (
This, then, makes one wonder. Had yesterday's march taken place before, rather than after, the enactment of the Chinese Anti-Secession Law, perhaps Taiwan might have had a shot at making Beijing halt its enactment. Surely, the chances would be much better than now.
It is true that President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) response after the enactment of the Anti-Secession Law has been praiseworthy -- resorting to sentimental and peaceful appeals in his talks in an effort to seek international support, and standing alongside marchers to highlight the grassroots nature of the march. But it is probably fair to say that he misjudged Beijing if -- as many commentators believe -- he had hoped that signing the ten-point joint statement with People's First Party (PFP) James Soong (宋楚瑜) would make Beijing back down from passing the law.
Through that joint statement, Chen essentially promised not to seek formal independence, as well as to respect a definition of the status of this country that is very close to "one China." That experience, among others, tells us that pacificism, compromises,and succumbing to Chinese demands will not make Beijing back down.
Unfortunately, while Chen may have learned his lesson, others -- namely the opposition pan-blue camp -- have not. Sadly, both Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS