There is no doubt that the election of President Chen Shui-bian (
Simply put, Beijing is proceeding as though Chen's election is largely irrelevant to the future of relations between Taiwan and China. Policymakers in the Chinese Communist Party snub Chen and officials of his government, asserting that they will have no meaningful dialogue with a regime headed by a member of the DPP.
Beijing has gone out of its way in recent months to court influential Taiwanese who are not affiliated with the DPP. Business leaders, academics, and especially prominent figures of other political parties have been given a warm welcome in China -- provided they endorse the concept of "one China."
Beijing's strategy appears to be one of outlasting the Chen government, confident that the next presidential election will produce a more palatable winner.
Unfortunately, some political leaders in Taiwan seem to be playing into Beijing's hands. They allow themselves to be courted, and while visiting the mainland they sometimes even make comments critical of policies pursued by the Chen government on the reunification issue.
That is a mistake, because it encourages the PRC to pursue hardline, uncompromising policies. It also fosters the communist conceit that democratic political systems are inherently weak and divided.
It is perfectly appropriate (indeed probably inevitable) in any democracy to have intense disagreements about policy. Taiwan is no exception. But there is a difference between criticizing a specific policy and allowing oneself to be manipulated by a shrewd and hostile foreign government.
The US encountered that problem frequently during the Cold War with the Soviet Union and its allies. Some opponents of the Vietnam War went to Hanoi during the height of the fighting to denounce US policy. Disarmament advocates sometimes went to Moscow to criticize Washington's military spending or its policy on arms control.
That is not to say that such policies should have been beyond criticism. There were perfectly sensible reasons to oppose the Vietnam War, and although the USSR was more to blame for Cold War tensions, US actions were not always praiseworthy.
But critics were often astonishingly oblivious to how they were being used for propaganda purposes when they criticized their own government while on enemy soil.
Matters are even worse when private citizens -- or even parliamentarians -- try to open informal channels for negotiations in competition with their government. During the earliest years of the American republic, Congress passed the Logan Act to specifically prohibit such conduct.
Taiwanese who are feted by the Beijing government ought to carry out the spirit expressed in the Logan Act. They should inform their PRC hosts that, regardless of their personal preferences, Chen Shui-bian is the duly elected president of Taiwan, and that for his entire term of office he speaks for all of the people in Taiwan in their dealings with China.
That is the proper role for a political opposition in any democracy. Sometimes opponents of a regime may dislike the elected leader and his policies so much that they forget the "loyal" portion of the term "loyal opposition." Forgetting that point and allowing themselves to be exploited by China, though, simply plays into the hands of the enemies of democracy.
Ted Galen Carpenter is vice-president for foreign policy andndefense studies at the Cato Institute.
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with