On Friday, Beijing gave the go-ahead to four Taiwan airlines to fly over Chinese airspace. This move is significant not only from a historical perspective, as for first time in half a century Chinese airspace is being opened up to Taiwanese aircraft, but also in terms of future developments in cross-strait relations. It seems obvious that the Taiwan government is now more than ever losing its grip on the pace at which cross-strait relations is evolving, more specifically when it comes to the issue of cross-strait direct links.
With Beijing partially opening up its airspace to Taiwan airlines, how much longer can total direct links be put off? Unfortunately, so far, Taiwan seems ill prepared to deal with the effects of full direct links.
The four airlines that received approval from Beijing are China Airlines and its subsidiary Mandarin Airlines, as well as EVA Airways and its subsidiary Uni Airways. However, it is worth noting that Beijing actually did not approve all of the air routes for which applications were submitted. The applications submitted for flying over northern China to other foreign destinations including Frankfurt and Paris were uniformly rejected. On the other hand, had these applications been approved, these new routes would have brought the airline operators even more time and energy savings than on the routes approved. As a result, EVA Airways accepted an alternative route via southern China proposed by Beijing, while China Airlines expressed the hope of continued negotiations with Beijing. However, the hope of negotiations ultimately leading to approval of the route originally requested by the airline is slim.
The official reason cited by the Chinese aviation authorities was that the proposed routes were "over-crowded."
However, spectators believe that the real reason were much more sensitive: national security reasons. Frankly put, the routes over northern China proposed by the airline operators were too close to Beijing and possibly other militarily sensitive zones.
The thing is that China may be big enough for alternative routes to be used, circumventing the need to fly over "sensitive zones." The same cannot be said about Taiwan. Now that Beijing has agreed to partially open up its airspace to Taiwanese airlines, is the Taiwan government ready to say "no" when a request for reciprocity is made? In view of the size of the island, it would be hard to carve out routes that keep a safe distance from all the "sensitive zones" of Taiwan.
As accurately pointed out by many commentators, this move by Beijing is but another precursor to full-blown cross-strait direct links. Almost simultaneously, numerous other proposals and discussions related to similar "precursors" to direct links have been entertained. With the Mid-Autumn Festival coming up in only a few weeks, there are again talks regarding special chartered direct flights for the holiday. Then, there are proposals regarding the opening up of chartered commercial direct flights over weekends on a regular basis for businessmen shuttling between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as chartered direct flights for tourists. This is not to mention the proposal by the Executive Yuan to initiate talks related to commercial cargo and chartered passenger flights simultaneously.
With so many different proposals and talks all ultimately aimed at direct links, it seems almost impossible for the Taiwan government to measure or control its policies on the matter. But the question is whether Taiwan can deal with the avalanche of problems that will crop up once full-blown direct links are established.
A high-ranking Chinese official, Zhu Xiangdong (
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