So it's been made official. There will be charter flights serving Taiwanese businessmen during the upcoming Lunar New Year. This time around, carriers from both sides of the Taiwan Strait will participate in providing two-way and non-stop flights between multiple Chinese and Taiwanese international airports. Equally, if not even more noteworthy, is the model of negotiation adopted, adding a third option to the models for cross-strait talks.
Both the Chinese and Taiwanese governments sent government officials to Macau for yesterday's negotiation, although they went in "unofficial" capacities. From the Taiwan side, Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) director-general Billy Chang (
This model of negotiation is somewhat akin to the so-called "2002 Taiwan-Hong Kong model" of aviation negotiations, under which representatives from the private sectors were joined by aviation government officials from both sides who participated in non-official capacities. The difference is that in that round of negotiations officials from the Mainland Affairs Counsel (MAC) also joined the negotiations in an "unofficial" capacity.
As for the model that was used to initiate cross-strait negotiations in talks between Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) chairman Koo Chen-fu (
Actually, the two sides gradually and tactfully reached consensus about the substantive model of the air links before yesterday's talks. The significance of the talks in Macau were not only to make the deal official, but also in the model of negotiation established. Many believe that this latest model of negotiations may very well be the model used for talks on more permanent cross-strait direct links.
Indeed, this model is the bottom line beyond which the Taiwan government must not go. Any further concessions risk reducing cross-strait talks to negotiations over "domestic affairs." While the government officials involved in negotiations went in "unofficial" capacities, they were government officials nonetheless. These aviation talks, practically speaking, cannot proceed without officials' involvement to begin with, since none of the issues being discussed can possibly be decided by members of the private sector. This demonstrates that cross-strait links are in reality international links and not domestic links. As for the flight routes agreed on yesterday, they are in fact international air routes from Chinese cities to Hong Kong and then from Hong Kong to Taiwan. In this regard, the Taiwan government has not compromised the public interest.
The charter flights for the upcoming Lunar New Year are significant for several other reasons. Unlike in the 2003 flights, Chinese air carriers will also participate, passengers can board from both ends (the Taiwan side as well as the Chinese side), and the flights will be uninterrupted, meaning there will be no transit stops in either Hong Kong or Macau, although planes will pass through airspace of one of the territories. And for the first time ever, there will be Chinese aircraft bearing the People's Republic of China flag embarking and landing in Taiwan's airports.
While both the Chinese and Taiwan government claim that the charter flights are isolated cases tailored to serve Taiwanese businessmen, the question on everyone's mind is nevertheless this: Will cross-strait direct links be made official soon? However, the question that the Taiwan government should really ask itself is this: Is it ready to face up and deal with the potential problems of such official direct links?
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers