Yesterday was supposed to be the day that Tai-wanese cargo planes could start flying between Taiwan and Shanghai, with only brief stopovers in either Macau or Hong Kong. This could have been a noteworthy milestone in cross-strait relations. However, despite the enormous profits to be had from running such a service and their previous enthusiasm, the response of Taiwan's air carriers was lukewarm -- none have applied to operate the route. Key to all this was of course the attitude of the Chinese government, which threw cold water on Taiwan's plans in a press conference held by its Taiwan Affairs Office on Sept. 11.
During the press conference, Pu Zhaozhou (
The statement immediately negated whatever progress that may have been made in realizing direct links. Beijing's insistence on treating cross-strait links as a domestic affair is precisely what caused the standoff in the first place. After all, agreeing to this would be conceding the existence of "one China" in which Taiwan is merely a province. Beijing's insistence on the "one China" principle as a basis for any and all cross-strait negotiations and interactions has been the primary roadblock to the relationship between the two sides.
Taiwan's attitude, in contrast, has been much more flexible, pragmatic and innovative in trying to improve the cross-strait relationship while side-stepping the thorny issue of the "one China" principle. Premier Yu Shyi-kun reiterated this stance last Saturday by saying that Taiwan had done all that was within its power to launch the new cargo route, because issues such as "bilateral direct flights" and even the "one China" principle could all be discussed once the two sides sat down for negotiations.
Such negotiations, however, are not likely to happen any time soon, since apparently Beijing won't budge from its stance.
The government is right to take incremental steps toward full-scale direct links. Between Taiwan and China, who has more to fear from the other? Surely, no one could disagree that it is Taiwan. Under the circumstances, conservatism on the part of the government is definitely a virtue. It is too risky to directly head for full-scale direct cross-strait links, as suggested by Beijing. Shipments by Taiwanese carriers to Shanghai would at least be a start that could lead to a larger scale opening in the future.
Moreover, one cannot help but wonder about Beijing's reasons for protesting Taiwan's plans for a new cargo route. After all, Taiwan had been the one who demanded government-to-government negotiations from the beginning as a show of its sovereignty, while Beijing insisted that negotiations between private groups on the two sides would suffice for such a "domestic affair." Well, if we follow Beijing's line of reasoning, then nothing would seem to reinforce the existence of "one China" more than the fact that a new cross-strait link, such as the one in question, can be launched without any negotiation whatsoever!
What this all boils down to is that Beijing simply does not want to give President Chen Shui-bian (
As for Chen, he has nothing to lose from this episode -- since he has every reason to now argue that Beijing is the one being uncooperative when it comes to cross-strait relations.
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