Repeated warnings from the US and China about the holding of a referendum on UN entry under the name "Taiwan" have so far failed to dampen the enthusiasm of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for its plebiscite plan.
Brushing off the move as an election gambit -- as the opposition and international media have done -- is dangerously over-simplifying the issue.
The referendum is about increasing Taiwanese consciousness among the public, especially younger generations, and making a statement to the world that -- contrary to the view that China bludgeons the international community into accepting -- the majority of Taiwanese do not consider their homeland to be part of China.
This kind of activity is essential if Taiwanese are to continue defending the nation's fragile democracy from absorption by its authoritarian neighbor.
Of course, it is also about mobilizing the pan-green vote. But name one political party that doesn't pull out all the stops to win an election.
Everyone knows that the UN bid, whatever name is used, is doomed to fail, but fear of failure should not be allowed to extinguish hope.
Nevertheless, China is intensifying its rhetoric, with a simultaneous increase in military activity aimed at worrying Taipei, while the US has already made its opinion clear and will no doubt up the ante as the election approaches, using any means possible to scupper the plebiscite.
Nevertheless, it was surprising this week to hear Lu De (
For Chinese officials to talk about using a democratic apparatus to counter Taiwan demonstrates just how riled Beijing's bigwigs are.
Whether Lu had official permission to air his views is unclear, but his words are just part of the usual mixture of threats and coercion that emerge from Beijing whenever Taiwan is planning something it doesn't like.
Government officials here would no doubt welcome the advent of a plebiscite in China and use it as proof that Taiwan's democracy can have a positive effect on its cross-strait rival.
But would a referendum in China really serve any purpose?
The result would be a foregone conclusion, as it is doubtful that anyone would be brave enough to vote against the party line on Taiwan's sovereignty.
Of course there are radical members of China's armed forces who would be willing to attack Taiwan tomorrow, but whether their view would hold sway before next year's Olympics and whether politicians would be willing to jeopardize China's international coming out party remain doubtful.
China has a lot to lose by taking reckless action over what is in effect a pointless vote, but failure to be seen to "rein in" Taiwan would cause the Communist Party leadership to appear toothless and deal a blow to its authority.
Because, despite the massive investment the Chinese military has made in the modernization of its weapons in recent years, doubts remain as to whether it has the necessary equipment and skill to pull off what would be the most ambitious amphibious landing since D-Day. The consequences of failure would be unthinkable. Add to this China's disastrous record of interfering in Taiwan's past elections, and a referendum, however undemocratically performed, would present Beijing with a face-saving compromise and a novel kind of stick with which to continue beating Taiwan.
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