Cross-strait charter flights for the Lunar New Year have not even got off the ground before running into turbulence. After the Taipei Airlines Association, the government's aviation representative, met Chinese officials in Macau to discuss the flights for the Lunar New Year, a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation departed for Beijing to hold talks with officials of the Taiwan Affairs Office under the State Council and the Civil Aviation Administration of China. The issue has given China another opportunity to exploit disagreement between the Democratic Progressive Party and the KMT.
No matter what the KMT delegation proposes or promises, and no matter what the Chinese officials say, the government should stand firm on national security and dignity.
First, Beijing has refused to negotiate directly with the government, as well as refusing to meet official and semi-official organizations such as the Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Straits Exchange Foundation. China has placed the negotiations on a lower footing than those formulated for the "Hong Kong model" for flights between Taiwan and Hong Kong in 2002. With China setting the agenda, the result will be detrimental to the security, interests and dignity of Taiwan.
Second, the results of the "negotiations" run a real risk of contradicting government policy and doing more harm than good. The operation of these flights for Taiwanese businesspeople based in China is not something of value to most Taiwanese, but rather a concession out of good will to an influential but barely grateful pro-KMT minority. The government must therefore know when to cut its losses, pull out of the "negotiations" and cancel the deal. Trips home by Taiwanese businesspeople for the holidays are a private matter and should be arranged ahead of time.
This year, the flights are being used to promote the "Sinification" of Taiwan's economy and even government itself. It is a classic example of China using commerce for political ends, and using all-too-willing members of the opposition against the government.
Will the charter flights impact on Taiwan's security? It is possible that the flights this time will be "non-stop, round-trip, multi-destination flights by carriers on both sides," and as such the impact could be significant. Because the flights are no longer restricted to Taiwanese businesspeople, the result is direct flights in fact, if not in name. Once this door is opened, Taiwan could lose more industry and capital to China. If this happens, there will be nowhere to turn.
Since the Chinese government is now in a position to choose who it will discuss these details with, it can accelerate attempts to drive a deeper wedge between the government and the KMT, the latter still believing itself to be Taiwan's de facto government, though it should be noted that the People First Party has showed little enthusiasm for the KMT delegation's visit.
The government must be firm and clear on when to pull out. If the arrangements for the flights and China's propaganda impact on the safety and dignity of the nation, then the "negotiations" must stop immediately.
This country cannot sacrifice the security interests of the majority to serve the temporary convenience of a well-funded minority.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS