The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has applied for permission for China's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Chen Yunlin (
The KMT has accused the Mainland Affairs Council of obstructing Chen's visit, while council officials say the government has been dealing with the issue according to the law, and that it has not attempted to block Chen from visiting.
According to a report by China's state-run Xinhua news agency last Tuesday, China appealed to Taiwan to let Chen visit thus: "The mainland hoped the Taiwan authorities would permit Chen's delegation to attend the forum" on farm trade in October, Xinhua said, citing a spokesman for the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS).
China may seem eager to have its top official for Taiwan affairs come here, but ARATS is refusing to respond to correspondence on the matter from its Taiwanese counterpart, the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF).
The SEF has sent letters to China three times -- the latest was issued last Friday -- without a peep.
Reports from China have said that if ARATS responds to the SEF, it might mislead outsiders into thinking that cross-strait relations are thawing.
If China does not want cross-strait relations to thaw, then what possible purpose does Chen's visit serve other than to undermine the government and, like a Trojan horse, set up a platform for further corrosion of security?
In April, the KMT held a joint cross-strait economic and trade forum with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in Beijing, at which China offered deals including the lowering of barriers for Taiwan-grown fruit, vegetables and other farm goods, the strengthening of cross-strait financial exchanges, allowing Taiwanese to apply for licenses to practice medicine in China and encouraging Taiwan's service sector to enter the Chinese market.
If China is so eager to "normalize, regularize and stabilize cross-strait economic relations," as Chen himself was quoted as saying during the KMT-CCP forum, then why does Beijing not immediately engage in dialogue with Taipei?
Few oppose cross-strait economic exchanges and trade in principle. But no one should harbor any illusions over the grave potential for sabotage that underlies the liberalization of cross-strait ties.
If the Mainland Affairs Council approves Chen's application, then he will be the most senior Chinese official to visit Taiwan in years.
Indeed, Chen is very welcome to come here and get a taste of what his country lacks. He will be even more welcome if he expresses genuine goodwill.
Overall, however, China continues to treat Taiwan to acts of provocation. It bypasses elected officials, denies the legitimacy of the Democratic Progressive Party administration and holds the democratic mechanism in contempt by talking only with opposition parties.
If Chen's visit is going to be just another cog in the Chinese machinery of manipulation and veiled threats, then he is not welcome. If his appearance at the KMT's forum next month is going to be just another transparent attack on the national interest under the ruse of "benefiting Taiwan's farmers," then he should forget about ever coming here -- so long as this nation harbors any self-respect.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS