On Friday, this newspaper ran two articles which together must make us question exactly where the new government is going on cross-strait relations.
The first was Cao Chang-ching's (
Cao thought that Chen had made two enormous blunders, first by invoking a Richard Nixon analogy -- that it take a hardliner to really work out a compromise -- when Nixon's room for maneuver then and Chen's now are completely different, and, more importantly, Chen's repeated promises that he would not enshrine the "two-states" model in the constitution, wouldn't change the nation's name and wouldn't hold a plebiscite on independence. Cao rightly characterized this as Chen retreating before Beijing had even applied pressure. Hardly a smart way of dealing with people whose concept of negotiation more nearly resembles intimidation.
But if Cao's reminding us of errors already made wasn't bad enough, in the very same edition of the newspaper was Mainland Affairs Council Chairperson Tsai Ying-wen (
And what exactly is to be gained thereby? China hasn't shown the slightest goodwill toward Taiwan for half a century. Why should anyone be so naive as to think that putting on ice a policy which is overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Taiwan to curry favor with the thugs who rule in Beijing -- who would destroy Taiwan in an instant if they had the military wherewithal, which they don't -- is good policy? Who elected this government? Was it the "state-to-state" enthusiasts of Taiwan or the dictators in Beijing and their creatures in the US State Department?
Tsai's words were meant as reassurance to KMT lawmakers worried by DPP Chairman Lin Yi Hsiung's (
Chen's contribution to this was Delphic to say the least. The government, said a statement from Chen's office, cannot go against the voice of the populous. Is that pro-two states or pro-Tsai? It should of course be the first, but we fear in the current atmosphere of cravenness it probably means the latter. And the advocates of "one China," that pathetic failure of a policy which has left Taiwan on its knees, seem to be riding as high in the new government as they did in the old.
A week ago in this very space we argued that while Chen's China policy was looking a little disappointing, we recognized that he had a difficult job living down his earlier Taiwan independence hotheadedness to be able to seem a plausible leader, especially in Washington.
But this has gone too far. It is all right to want to appear conciliatory. But there comes a time when appeasement has to stop, when expediency has to give way to metal. When is Chen going to draw his line in the sand, and into what small corner will he have backed himself -- and Taiwan -- before he does?
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing