Last week the local Chinese-language media portrayed Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
A better way to depict the situation is this: only after Lien and the KMT backed down from their prior position about the purpose and nature of the trip have both the US and Taiwan governments decided to adopt a less skeptical, wait-and-see attitude.
On Tuesday, Randall Schriver, the US deputy assistant secretary of state in charge of China and Taiwan issues told reporters that "the leaders in Beijing will ultimately have to talk to the elected leaders in Taiwan and the government that is in power."
If Beijing is only willing to speak with opposition leaders such as Lien and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), the already complicated cross-strait relationship will only become more complicated. So, although Schriver did not criticize Lien and Soong, it isn't hard to detect some degree of skepticism. The KMT is obviously aware of this.
A meeting between Lien and American Institute in Taiwan Director Douglas Paal took place the day after Schriver's comments. KMT spokesman Chang Jung-kung (
It is generally believed that both Lien and Soong communicated to the US through various channels that during their trips to China they will not sign any agreement with Beijing and will act in accordance with their status as opposition leaders. Chang's remarks seem to confirm this general belief.
It makes sense then, that US State Department spokesperson Adam Ereli said on Wednesday in Washington that "Recent travels to China by Taiwanese individuals are positive steps ... we, I think, look favorably on and welcome steps in that direction."
At the same time, the Presidential Office has indicated that it is treating the visits by Lien and Soong as purely private in nature and without any official status. From that standpoint, the Presidential Office has indicated support for Lien and Soong's trips. The government's change in posture obviously had much to do with the promises conveyed by Lien and Soong -- either through the US or other channels -- to not overstep their bounds.
The attitude of the Taiwan and US governments can be interpreted as follows: If you must go, then so long as you do not do anything illegal, we'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
However, that attitude is way too tolerant of Lien and Soong. It is true that if they go in private capacities and aren't breaking any laws, there is no way to stop them. After all, many Taiwanese citizens travel across the Taiwan Strait on a regular basis.
But Lien and Soong are also leaders of political parties. Voters have cast ballots for their parties in freely-held elections, and in that sense they are politically accountable to the people of Taiwan. Their trips have helped ease international pressure on China for its enactment of the "Anti-Secession" Law and diverted the Taiwanese public's attention. For that, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt from anyone.
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