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
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath