Ahead of the next round of cross-strait talks in Taichung later this month, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has suggested that visiting Chinese officials be arrested and tried for criminal conduct in China, particularly for human rights abuses. China being what it is, there is a rich selection of such people, and the DPP, if it had its way, could make merry from blocking such officials from visiting Taiwan.
This idea is idealistic but impractical, if not nonsensical. But it does reopen debate on what level of accountability Chinese officials visiting Taiwan should be subjected to. Given that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to this day considers itself to be the most able organization to govern China, and given that Taiwan is supposedly part of China, why would such flotsam not be held accountable for abuses committed against Chinese nationals?
Once again the irony rears its head: The DPP asks a question that inadvertently requires careful thought on the future of cross-strait relations, and the KMT fails to answer it. For the KMT, on every front, on every occasion, economics is the key that will open the door to mutual prosperity and a lasting peace.
This, of course, fails to address the myriad factors that threaten peace in China — from within.
There is a large number of things that the KMT can do to address the legitimate interests of the Chinese people, whether or not Taiwanese are considered among their number. Yet the KMT is barely cognizant of the potential role that Taiwan can — and should — play in China if it is to live up to its purported role of beacon for ordinary Chinese.
Cross-strait ties must learn how to walk before they can run. Trade and financial liberalization is the obvious first step for two countries with economies already closely tied and, thus far, mutually beneficial.
But whatever economic reward or damage might result from this month’s talks, nothing can change the fact that Taiwan’s government offers nothing resembling a policy on how to deal with every other aspect of China, of which politics is a large component, but only one component.
Similarly, when foreign organizations such as the European Chamber of Commerce Taipei (ECCT) uncritically laud more intimate ties with the Chinese, caution is warranted. This is not because of the dangers inherent in closer economic ties — though these are substantial — but because the process of detente requires opening channels of communication in much more sensitive areas that only begin with politics. On such unavoidable issues — what role should Taiwan play in democratizing China and empowering ordinary Chinese? — the silence of the ECCT has been salutary: Give us the benefits, it seems to say, and the little people can worry about the rest, if they can be bothered.
As the debate over the form and intensity of contact with China continues, the problem of addressing social issues in China will be one that Taiwanese political parties will not be able to ignore.
The problem with the KMT and the DPP is that, in a classic mix of ideology and irony, both parties are entirely uninterested in social issues in China, with the exception of relief for natural disasters, but even this focus is motivated by political concerns and not the fate of the common man.
If such ignorance and parochialism continues, Taiwan will be the loser — whoever is in power, and whatever policies are in place.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS