Nauru's announcement of its plan to establish diplomatic ties with China is further proof that there is no end in sight to the zero-sum diplomatic and economic aid race between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan's government claimed that it would never follow China's steps, or accede to financial bargaining from nations in receipt of its aid. With these words still ringing in our ears, the government decided to provide economic aid to Haiti. Such inconsistency between the government's words on the one hand and its deeds on the other is confusing. Moreover, the government has reiterated its charge that China is engaging in "money diplomacy" but that Taiwan is merely providing positive "economic aid." Meanwhile, Beijing, for its part, has lambasted Taiwan in the same way. So who is right and who is wrong?
The answer is straightforward. If a nation decides to establish diplomatic ties with Beijing a few years after Taipei decides to provide it with economic aid, the aid project, having failed, will be interpreted as money diplomacy. In other words, "money diplomacy" has come to mean "failed economic aid programs." This is the predicament currently facing Taiwan. Due to the cross-strait situation, diplomatic motives lie hidden behind the foreign economic aid supplied by Taiwan and China. The success or failure of such aid is usually evaluated in terms of its diplomatic effects.
Following Nauru's shift -- just as after Taiwan severed ties with Tonga several years ago -- the government has repeatedly emphasized, "No more money diplomacy." Are the people of Taiwan, however, willing to accept a dramatic decrease in the number of the nation's diplomatic allies once Taiwan stops providing economic aid to developing countries?
Moreover, government officials and the general public are always incandescent with indignation when an aid recipient nation breaks off diplomatic relations with Taipei. Such emotion is generated by a lack of understanding of the nature of economic aid. We understand economic aid as assistance provided by rich countries to poor countries. The latter rely on financial support from the former.
When diplomatic motives are added to the economic aid equation, however, donor countries become far more dependent on the recipient nations than vice versa. It is therefore difficult to unilaterally cut off economic aid to allies since we need these countries to speak for Taiwan in the international community.
Is it possible to reverse Taiwan's over-dependence on its aid recipients, making them unwilling to sever ties with Taiwan? In recent days, the relevant government agencies have repeatedly claimed there would be no money diplomacy, but have failed to propose any measures to modify the aid policy. Some of Taiwan's other allies may now follow Nauru's example and switch recognition to Beijing. The crux of the problem lies in the fact that economic aid policies have never been comprehensively reviewed and improved.
Under the structure of international development cooperation, Taiwan should strengthen social exchanges and cooperation with its aid-recipient allies through the government and NGOs. It is worth breaking the traditional mode in which economic aid only focuses on official contacts and, instead, to promote humanitarian concerns "from bottom to top" and develop cooperation. Although it takes a long time to form partnerships in civil society, this method can undoubtedly help to mold interdependent relations and further guarantee friendship between two countries.
Lin Teh-chang is director of the Center for International NGO Studies at National Sun Yat-Sen University.
Translated by Jackie Lin
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
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
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS