To lessen the potential for military confrontation in the Taiwan Strait, both the governing and opposition parties have once again broached the idea of building a military mutual-trust mechanism between Taipei and Beijing.
Since cross-strait relations are fraught with problems, establishing a military mutual-trust mechanism is the key to gaining confidence between the two sides. Such a mechanism would ease political tensions, avoid military miscalculation, provide communication channels and stabilize the relationship between Taiwan and China. We cannot help but ask why both sides have failed to make a breakthrough in such an important matter.
It's certainly not because a military mutual-trust mechanism is inapplicable to cross-strait relations. There are a mixture of reasons behind the inertia, which all have something to do with the political climate in the Strait.
First, each side has different perceptions about the source of the threat to their national security. Second, each side has its own internal concerns to tackle. Third, each side is highly suspicious of the other.
If both Taipei and Beijing are committed to mapping out a military mutual-trust mechanism, then they will probably need to have an in-depth understanding of how such mechanisms work.
First, present-day military mutual-trust mechanisms include unilateral, bilateral and multilateral types. Quite a few such mechanisms were established through copying or imitating ones that operate in other regions. From present-day mechanisms, we know that foreign intervention during attempts to build such a mechanism is also a possibility. Finally, although such mechanisms are mainly applicable to sovereign states, they can also be used for quasi-states such as Palestine.
As a result, rather than engaging in empty talk, Taiwan can unilaterally take confidence-building actions. It could renounce the use of force against China and the idea of Taiwanese independence and push ahead with cross-strait exchanges, including visits to both sides by high-ranking officials to demonstrate goodwill.
More powerful nations are reluctant to accept this kind of mechanism, for less powerful countries stand to gain more from them. Therefore, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party reached a consensus its formation, it seemed like an opportunity for the Democratic Progressive Party to make this a turning point.
We can also refer to similar mechanisms elsewhere in the world. On various diplomatic occasions, we should deliver our goodwill gestures to the international community and reduce to a minimum factors that will escalate tensions or cause errors to be made. In addition, Beijing should adopt a receptive approach and abandon its inflexible ideology of treating Taiwan as a vassal state or a local government. Lastly, such a mechanism could also be brought about as a result of foreign intervention, most likely from the US.
Some believe that the US has fostered suspicion and distrust between Taipei and Beijing. But if we think outside the box, we can see that the US also plays a balancing role in cross-strait affairs, maintaining a military equilibrium. The US can also serve as a mediator, making sure cross-strait conflict does not escalate to an irreversible level.
Thus, we can follow the goals and policies dictated by the US, which wants a stable cross-strait situation. Through the establishment of a military mutual-trust mechanism, confidence-building steps and preventive diplomacy to manage potential crises, we can usher in a new phase in cross-strait relations.
Huang Kwei-bo is an assistant professor in the department of diplomacy at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry