In May, Beijing announced that it would consider preferential treatment for imports of Taiwanese fruit.
In theory, China's possible opening of its markets to the nation's fruit exports should be worthy of applause. After all, this would create a new market for Taiwan's industrious fruit farmers, ensure them a better livelihood and free them from the anxiety caused by poor harvests that produce insufficient fruit followed by bumper harvests that push prices to rock-bottom levels. Fruit exports to China would join the nation's successful exports to Japan, South Korea and other countries.
But given that this "goodwill" comes only two months after China stepped up its threats against the Taiwanese people with its passage of the "Anti-Secession" Law on March 14, Beijing's offer is suspect. Now that the initial excitement has worn off, all the signs suggest that China's fruit policy is not without hidden traps of which Taiwan must be wary.
Now, the Taiwan Provincial Farmers' Association (TPFA), under the leadership of its president Liu Chuan-chung (
Later this month, the KMT legislative caucus will also lead delegation to China. The rumored purpose of that visit? To win rights over the export of Taiwan's agricultural produce to China.
Politicians can be counted on to be drawn to profit like sharks to blood. But what is more worrying is the possibility that these pan-blue legislators are pursuing political goals, in addition to financial advantage. If they are seeking to establish a beachhead for China's exercise of power in Taiwan, then our political process will come further under Beijing's influence. It would hardly be a surprise if this situation came about due to the pan-blue camp's activities.
If Beijing agrees to allow the rights to control the export of the nation's agricultural produce to be held exclusively by the pan-blue camp, these agents will distribute a portion of these profits to establish connections and support around Taiwan.
Of course, it's hardly coincidental that Taiwan's fruit farmers are mainly located in southern Taiwan, the traditional electoral support base for the pan-green camp. This is a perfect chance for the pan-blues to use commercial benefits to buy these farmers' support and break down the pan-green camp's advantage in the region.
If that effort succeeds, the path is clear to electing a pro-China president in 2008. And if this were to happen, how would such a government differ from Hong Kong, which is no more than Beijing's lackey?
Faced with a turning point in cross-strait relations, the DPP government should muster all its resolve to avoid a situation in which a foreign power might influence domestic politics. It should also prevent Taiwan's farmers from rashly increasing investment and thereby making themselves economically hostage to Beijing and the threat of a policy reversal.
In any case, the majority of Taiwanese farmers are not motivated solely by profit. The result will depend largely on how the DPP government analyzes and explains the pros and cons of the situation to the farmers, avoiding a situation in which they are easily misled by pan-blue officials with financial and political agendas.
It is time for the DPP government to demonstrate its ability to govern the nation. The price it will pay for procrastinating on the issue will be handing over the reins of power -- ? or even Taiwan itself.
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