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
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