The Lunar New Year cross-strait chartered flights broke a 56-year-old political deadlock, offering for the first time direct flights that are two-way, mutual and non-stop. This shows that the national security concerns and political obstacles that stood in the way of such flights no longer are insurmountable. The biggest remaining obstacle for direct flights now probably exists only in the minds of the leaders in Taipei and Beijing.
Many people hope that these chartered flights will be the first of many attempts to break the ice, but given political realities this is by no means certain.
The cross-strait political deadlock, including everything from "one China" to the "anti-secession" legislation, will be very difficult to break through. However, Jia Qinglin's (賈慶林) speech on the anniversary of Jiang Zemin's (江澤民) "Eight Points," where he said that acknowledging the "1992 consensus" is one of the conditions that must be met in order to revive cross-strait talks, implies one possible way to break through the decade-long deadlock.
If Premier Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) talk about the constitutional "one China" framework can be made part of the next Cabinet's policies, there is definite hope for peaceful dialogue.
The natural question following the realization of cross-strait flights is "What's next?" Are the flights a harbinger of direct flights, dialogue, exchanges and reconciliation, or are they just the calm before the storm that will follow the anti-secession legislation and a new constitution for Taiwan in 2008? The coverage on the flights in the international media contains much food for thought for both China's and Taiwan's leaders.
If China wants to effectively follow up on its talk of pinning its hope on the people of Taiwan, there is no way that they will be able to do so by passing anti-secession legislation. Such a law will only serve to alienate the people of Taiwan from Beijing and legitimize the desinicization that already is taking place in Taiwan.
It is said that the weaker must use intelligence when dealing with the stronger, and some of the more radical suggestions in Taiwan for expanding local opposition, such as enacting anti-annexation legislation and holding a referendum, are not in Taiwan's best interests.
Taiwan for its part should consider the following issues.
First, the government should review the charter flights and consider whether national interests have been protected, whether Taiwan's sovereignty and dignity have been respected, whether cross-strait tensions have been reduced and whether its people's interests have been guaranteed.
If these questions are answered in the affirmative, ways should be found to expand such flights and increase cross-strait exchanges in order to bring the people out of the shadow of war.
Second, we should discuss whether a democratic government exists to manage or to serve the public. The small details which show the government's "management" mindset, such as the fact that Taiwanese students were not allowed to travel on the flights and the government's use of the flights as an opportunity to punish those engaged in matters it does not encourage. Looking at the bigger issues, we are given to wonder how many businesspeople have wasted time and money on endless flight transfers every year? Isn't this something to which a government serving the people should try to find a solution?
Third, although the government and opposition here are fighting to claim credit for the charters, the view of the international community is that it is President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) achievement.
Chen should understand that he is responsible for the success or failure of anything that occurrs during his presidency. The question of how to use the opposition as leverage and give the Cabinet the authority it needs to break through the cross-strait deadlock will determine his legacy. He should rise above party politics and power struggles.
As depicted in the Democratic Progressive Party's flag, Taiwan stands at a historical crossroads. Chen will have to decide whether the next three years will be a continuation of the previous five years' calls for the public to protect Taiwan, opposition to China and continued deadlock, or if he will create a historical reconciliation between government and opposition. It's all a matter of making the right decision.
Emile Sheng is an assistant professor in the department of political science at Soochow University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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