The pro- and anti-unification media in Taiwan rarely agree on cross-strait matters. This time, however, they seem to have the same opinion of Japanese scholar Kenichi Ohmae's prediction that Taiwan and China will unify under a federal system in 2005. According to the local media, the establishment of a Chinese federation in 2005 is an impossible dream.
Ohmae is a famous economist who once served as an adviser to the KMT government. He has a deep understanding of the economic development of both China and Japan. Unfortunately, his understanding of the cross-strait political situation and Taiwan's internal situation is inadequate. Ohmae's prediction about unification was made from an economic perspective. As China rapidly grows and becomes a leading power in Asia, it's conceivable that Taiwan will have to "hitch a ride" from China in order to prosper. But economic exchanges will not necessarily lead to a political merger.
Ohmae obviously does not understand mainstream opinion and political reality in Taiwan. The island was occupied by the Dutch, the Qing dynasty, the Japanese and the KMT government in past centuries. It has also faced constant oppression and humiliation from China.
Today, the Taiwanese have finally built a democratic regime here after suffering numerous hardships. Most would find it unacceptable to give up their autonomy and yield to Beijing's rule. Besides, Taiwan has already entered a democratic era. No politician or political party can make decisions for the Taiwanese people -- especially regarding Taiwan's China policy. Only the Taiwanese have a say over the nation's future. This has become a consensus in Taiwan.
No conclusion will be reached on the unification issue before the 2004 presidential election, because the DPP has to give consideration to the voices of the pro-independence camp, and the opposition camp worries that it may be labeled as "selling out Taiwan." After the election, it is also impossible that the newly elected president will commit political suicide and surrender to Beijing by degrading his post to that of chief executive of China's Taiwan Special Administrative Region.
Ohmae is also out of touch with the current situation in China. His 2005 unification theory was made on the basis of Chinese President Jiang Zemin's (江澤民) rule. However, Chinese Vice President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) was elected general secretary of the CCP Central Committee at the party's 16th National Congress last year. Hu's leading role has gradually solidified, and although Jiang's political influence still remains strong, he will no longer be the head of the state. Therefore, the basis of his prediction does not really exist.
Ohmae is unfamiliar with models of cross-strait unification. He thinks it makes no difference whether the resulting entity is named a commonwealth, confederation, federation or incorporates a system like the EU. But these terms carry different meanings in the fields of international politics and international law.
A federation is formed by a number of separate states under a central government. A hierarchy exists between the central government and each state. This is the "one country, two systems" formula that Taiwan cannot accept.
A "China Confederation" would be an organization loosely joined by several nations, more like the EU or a commonwealth. Taiwan's political parties are in favor of this system, but Jiang Zemin gave it a thumbs down.
Ohmae also neglected the influence of international factors. As Western nations eagerly promote globalization, anti-terrorism and anti-hegemony, will they support Taiwan-China unification in 2005, enabling China to dominate Asia? Could Japan feel secure if a Chinese Federation arose? Given international worries about China, cross-strait unification by 2005 is impossible.
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