The Economist Intelligence Unit, a sister company to The Economist magazine can only be regarded as a reliable weathervane on Taiwan's affairs if, as a result of its predictions, one expects the exact opposite to actually happen -- as it almost invariably does. The Economist itself, however, tends to say less about Taiwan but show a little more sagacity when it does -- it was for example almost the only international news publication to point out prior to the Dec. 11 legislative elections that President Chen Shui-bian's (
This week's magazine, which contains a 10-page survey on Taiwan and its relations with China, has, therefore, to be read with interest -- not least because it is seven years since the last such extended treatment. Also of interest is that the survey is penned by the magazine's Beijing correspondent, James Miles. While ordinarily The Economist does not byline its articles, it is a safe assumption that the majority of its China coverage comes from Miles. From these shores, that coverage seems at times to be almost ludicrously optimistic about the kind of society China might become and not nearly attentive enough either to China's current nastiness or to the massive obstacles in the way of progress. Given the magazine's throw-weight in the corridors of power, this week's offering could only be opened with some trepidation.
The result is an argument that, frankly, more people need to take serious note of.
That, of all international security dangers, nowhere risks a regional great-power conflict like the Taiwan Strait is convincingly pointed out. But this is unlikely to happen. Since Taiwan is vital to China's economy and the economy is vital to the continuing rule of the communist party, Beijing is not going to shoot the goose that lays golden eggs. How then is China's bellicosity to be explained? As an attempt, it is suggested, to stop Taiwan from taking measures that would force China to act. For domestic political reasons, no Chinese leader can survive who appears weak on Taiwan. But the current leadership almost certainly doesn't want to really get tough with Taiwan. So what they aim to achieve is to deter Taiwan from taking any action which would put pressure on them to get tough and which might, therefore, reveal their weakness.
It's an interesting analysis, made all the more plausible by that rare thing in the international media, a fair and understanding look at Taiwanese nationalism. It is, however, a pity that nothing is said about the anti-secession law, which really needs to be put in context -- does Chinese President Hu Jintao (
In the end, however, the survey gets it right. "Ultimately, China will have to come to terms with Tai-wan's permanent separation. The most it can ever realistically hope for -- even if a liberal democracy were to take root on the mainland -- is an arrangement along the lines of the European Union that preserves separate sovereignties. Taiwan would not want to get any closer."
This is excellent common sense which needs to be taken seriously in places where The Economist's long reach makes a difference. Whether the idea that China is slowly understanding the limits of what is possible is overly optimistic, readers can judge for themselves. But at least we have to be grateful for an assessment that, while it might not be everything dedicated "nation-builders" want to hear, presents a fairer and more realistic picture of the Taiwan-China issue that we have seen for some time.
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
Liberals have wasted no time in pointing to Karol Nawrocki’s lack of qualifications for his new job as president of Poland. He has never previously held political office. He won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.9 percent of the vote. However, Nawrocki possesses the one qualification that many national populists value above all other: a taste for physical strength laced with violence. Nawrocki is a former boxer who still likes to go a few rounds. He is also such an enthusiastic soccer supporter that he reportedly got the logos of his two favorite teams — Chelsea and Lechia Gdansk —
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS