Against the backdrop of a China-bug-infected feverish Taiwan, the "four-nation meeting," brought up by former president Lee Tung-hwei (
The biggest obstacle is, of course, China. But the situation may not be as hopeless as most people might assume.
One of the basic realities is that China and Taiwan can never engage in productive direct talks because of an imbalance in strength. China will always have the urge to flex its muscles while Taiwan suffers a continuous lack of confidence to assert itself.
It's also dangerous for the two to talk directly after China's enactment of the "Anti-Secession" Law because what happens in the talks may "force China to conclude that all hopes for unification have been exhausted." The talks can then actually precipitate a military attack on Taiwan by China.
Therefore, any talks initiated by Taiwan now would be nothing more than surrender. In the case where China were to initiate the talks, Taiwan would have no alternative but to insist as a pre-condition that China repeals all references to "non-peaceful means" in its "law." None of these are probable in the current atmosphere.
One then has to conclude that only a multi-nation conference holds any reasonable probability of solving the impasse peacefully.
A multi-nation conference can be held periodically and ends only when a peaceful outcome is achieved. It can last months or even years. While the talks are ongoing, the chance for military confrontation is diminished. In contrast, direct talks between Taiwan and China can at any time cause a war just because of non-progress.
In addition, no pre-condition is needed here. That means China doesn't have to renounce its "non-peaceful means" before entering into the talks, thereby removing a thorny obstacle.
Unfortunately, the four-nation conference is a non-starter under present conditions.
The foremost issue is that China does not recognize Taiwan as a country. While formally neither do the US and Japan, they most likely wouldn't mind being seated at the same conference table with Taiwan as long as China doesn't object. But it's inconceivable that China would now agree to sitting down with Taiwan in the company of the US and Japan.
The idea of three-plus-one-nation talks, on the other hand, holds some promise.
Under this concept, the conference will be attended by China, the US and Japan with Taiwan as the observer. Taiwan can only channel its positions and ideas through the US or Japan. The conference can last indefinitely. Any arrangements agreed upon in the conference regarding Taiwan's future status would have to be approved by the Taiwanese people through one or a series of referendums.
In order to arrive at that point, there are hurdles to cross.
First of all, China will have to be convinced that the cross-strait issue is international in nature. There are signs that, to some degree, China might already have conceded this.
In the last couple of years, it was the US' help China would solicit to rein in Taiwan's democracy. Then, in February of this year, when Japan joined the US in announcing that the Taiwan Strait is a region of "mutual security concern," China didn't protest.
The most telling sign can be found in China's Anti-Secession Law. Since the law refers to the use of force as the last resort, it then follows that, once it was promulgated, China in practicality removed any chance for direct talks between Taiwan and China, leaving an international meeting as the only vehicle for a peaceful conclusion.
Secondly, there must be an incentive to hold the meeting. Presumably none of the three conferees would like to see a military conflict in the region if it can be avoided. Regional peace then emerges as the common incentive for all three.
Third, the US and China must have the tacit agreement to de-link this meeting from that of the North Korea's nuclear armament, lest the cross-strait issue become a bargaining chip in their western Pacific regional power struggle.
Sitting at the confluence of the US' Taiwan Relations Act, China's Anti-Secession Law and the mutual concern of the US-Japan Security Alliance, the cross-strait issue demands to be resolved jointly -- and peacefully -- by those nations that have much to gain -- or lose.
Taiwan’s status in the world community is experiencing something really different; it’s being treated like a normal country. And not just a “normal” country, more like a valuable, constructive, democratic and generous country. This is not simply an artifact of Taiwan’s successes in combatting the novel coronavirus. It is a new attitude, weighing Taiwan’s democracy against China’s lack of it. Before I continue, I should apologize to the readers of the Taipei Times. I have not visited Taipei since the opening of the American Institute in Taiwan’s new chancery building in Neihu last year, so I was unprepared for the photograph
On Sept. 27, 2002, the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (East Timor) joined the UN to become its 191st member. Since then, two other nations have joined, Montenegro on June 28, 2006, and South Sudan on July 14, 2011. The combined total of the populations of these three nations is just more than half that of Taiwan’s 23.7 million people. East Timor has 1.3 million, Montenegro has slightly more than half a million and South Sudan has 10.9 million. They all are members of the UN, yet much more populous Taiwan is denied membership. Of the three, East Timor, as a Southeast Asian
At a June 12 news conference held by the Talent Circulation Alliance to announce the release of its white paper for this year, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) emphasized that, in this era of globalization, Taiwan should focus on improving foreign language and digital abilities when cultivating talent, so that it stands out from global competitors. I suggest the government should consider building a professional translation industry. If the public believes that there is a relationship between learning English and national competitiveness, then the nation must consider the social cost of language education. This should be assessed to maximise educational effectiveness: Is
Taiwan has for decades singlehandedly borne the brunt of a revanchist, ultra-nationalist China — until now. Ever since Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison had the temerity to call for a transparent, international investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, Beijing has been turning the screws on Canberra. This has included unleashing aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomats to intimidate Australian policymakers, enacting punitive tariffs on its exports, and threatening an embargo on Chinese tourists and students to the nation. A tense situation became more serious on June 19 after Morrison revealed that a “sophisticated state-based actor” — read: China — had launched a