Last month marked the 20th anniversary of the lifting of the ban on visits to China. Between 1949 and 1987, Taiwanese were completely segregated from the people of China. It was obviously tragic and, indeed, painful for those who had left their families and friends behind after the civil war. Therefore, the initial opening up which allowed these people to return to their homes and families in China for visits and reunions was primarily for humanitarian reasons.
However, the opening up that began 20 years ago came too late to prevent a tragic occurrence -- the creation of an entire generation of Mainlanders in Taiwan who had become trapped in a unique time capsule. For those who fled to Taiwan with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, most could not find it in their hearts to truly identify Taiwan as their home. For decades, the KMT government brainwashed them into believing that it would lead them in retaking China and returning to their real homes.
When they finally realized that would not happen, it was too late. They had been kept apart from their homes in China for so long that when they finally returned they discovered home was not what it used to be.
This history created not only personal tragedy for these people, but has been, and continues to be, the root of a fundamental political divide. To a large extent, the endless rivalry and confrontation between the pan-green and pan-blue camps reflects the fundamental conflict between Mainlanders and ethnic Taiwanese.
There were optimists who felt confident that with the weathering of the first generation of Mainlanders, ethnic divisions would ease. However, one should keep in mind that as ethnic Taiwanese became increasingly aware of their majority status and ethnicity during a backdrop of political liberalization and democratization, some Mainlanders and their offspring felt increasingly alienated and threatened, which in turn pushed them closer to each other and further away from ethnic Taiwanese.
Cross-strait exchanges continue to achieve new milestones. Now the Taiwanese shuttle between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait regularly. Taiwanese businesses have spent billions of dollars in China over the past decades in investments. It is estimated that as many as 1 million Taiwanese work in China on a regular basis. The number of cross-strait marriages is leading to a series of new social and political issues and a new generation of children with parents from different sides of the Taiwan Strait.
Under these circumstances, the reasons cited by proponents of further liberalization in cross-strait relations have long gone beyond the simple "humanitarian" grounds for the initial opening 20 years ago.
The motives now include business, political and social factors. With so many interests and ideologies constituting the cross-strait relationship, the government requires a firm policy that weighs economic interests against the need to maintain the nation's de facto independence and the threat posed by China's missiles and "Anti-Secession" Law.
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath