The Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on Sept. 2 that Taiwan and Mongolia would exchange representative offices. The ministry claimed the deal "can strengthen bilateral cooperation in areas such as economics, trade, culture, tourism and labor affairs." From my experience at the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, I am not optimistic. The decision is merely a step toward the "de-sinicization" of Taiwan in a bid to implement the DPP's "Resolution on Taiwan's Future." Is it worthwhile to roll out another diplomatic pork barrel for this tiny benefit?
First, only a few hundred people travel between Taiwan and Mongolia annually. The annual Taiwan-Mongolia trade volume is no more than US$3 million. One must pass through China to enter Mongolia. There is little in the way of Mongolia-bound Taiwanese investments and these mostly focus on clothing because there are no quotas for Mongolian exports to Europe and the US. But as Taiwan and China have joined the WTO and as textile quotas will be removed by 2005, China will replace Mongolia in the textiles market.
Council of Labor Affairs Chair-woman Chen Chu (陳菊) recently visited Mongolia to discuss labor issues. Apparently the government uses the importation of workers as a bargaining chip to expand Taiwan's external relations. But Mongolians face language and cultural barriers in Taiwan and traveling expenses are much higher than that between Taiwan and Southeast Asia. Just how many Mongolian workers could pay the brokerage fees to come to Taiwan is questionable.
Second, Article 4 of the Constitution stipulates that "The territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly." But the ministry's decision undoubtedly treats Mongolia as an independent state. This is unconstitutional.
To strengthen bilateral ex-changes, the government could have the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission establish an office in Mongolia. The political intent of its decision reflects the ruling party's "Resolution on Tai-wan's Future," which recognizes that the ROC's sovereign territory only covers "Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and its affiliated islands."
The China External Trade Development Council set up a Taiwan trade and economic center in Mongolia in June. After only three months, another representative office is to be established. Is it really necessary? The Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission's latest bud-get report contains a plan to set up an office in Mongolia with the help of non-governmental organizations. If this is also to be implemented, there will soon be three offices representing Taiwan in Mongolia. Is this a waste? How will they divide the work?
What advantages can we have by playing this card? Will Mongolia admit the ROC as a result or support Taiwan's bid to rejoin the UN? Will high-ranking Mongolian officials, who care very much about China's attitude, pay frequent visits to Taiwan? I'm afraid that the answer is "no" to all three questions.
The Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission has provided assistance to Mongolia over the years, including food, disaster relief and coordinating with private organizations to provide medical care and humanitarian aid. But the Mongolian government has never publicly accepted such donations. Why should we stoop to such unequal relations? Will it become another diplomatic pork barrel when the ministry, rather than the commission, makes contact with Mongolia? The ruling and opposition parties should raise the issue.
Kao Koong-lian is a professor at Chung-yuan Christian University and a former chairman of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission.
Translated by Jackie Lin
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
RSS