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.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under