As the first hundreds of Chinese tourists begin their tour of Taiwan and onlookers puzzle over the word qiezi (茄子) that precedes clicking cameras, academics and officials on the other side of the Strait are starting to get all kinds of dangerous ideas.
Never mind China’s deployment of more modern surface-to-air missiles that threaten Taiwan’s airspace, or the fact that cross-strait flights are skewed in favor of Chinese airlines and eat into Taiwanese airlines’ income, or that the promises of an economic miracle from Chinese tourism seem to be getting flimsier by the day. Such rapacious behavior on Beijing’s part was to be expected and the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), intoxicated with the promise of better relations with China, seems to have fallen for the hype hook, line and sinker.
Beyond all this, there is now a perception, as reported by Christopher Hughes of the London School of Economics, that Ma has finally adopted Beijing’s views and will do what it wants him to do — that he has become Beijing’s man in Taipei, who will open the gates of the castle and bring about the dream of annexation.
Such thinkers could be forgiven for entertaining this view, since their understanding of politics has evidently been shaped by the authoritarian system that has ruled their society since they were born. But to expect that a single individual in a democracy — even a president — can do what he wants at the expense of the millions of people who voted, and did not vote, for him is confabulatory. It explains why unification will never work — at least not while China remains an authoritarian state.
Despite the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) ill-concealed contempt for the legislature and other branches of government, Taiwan remains a country of laws, with a Constitution that prevents the executive from exercising undue power or its actions from threatening national security. In other words, the KMT for the moment is barred from operating as a party-state.
While the manner in which the KMT has conducted diplomacy with Beijing since May 20 has, by relying on unofficial channels, come close to breaking the law, Taiwanese would never allow Ma to utilize his power in a way that puts the survival of the state in danger. If he did, other officials within the KMT, such as Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平), would be expected to intervene; if they did not, the credibility of the KMT as a Taiwanese political party would be dealt a fatal blow.
Despite the flexibility he has shown to date on matters of sovereignty, Ma is not Beijing’s man, some brainwashed Manchurian candidate that can be radio‑controlled to do its bidding. Even if he were, the checks and balances of a democratic system would stop him before he could do irreparable damage to Taiwan’s sovereignty. Nevertheless, the comments made by Chinese academics and officials run the risk of reinforcing the perception that he is a tool of China, which can only make it more difficult for him to exercise his presidential powers.
Even so, vigilance is in order. The president’s every move, along with those of his immediate circle, must be scrutinized, and any indication that he is about to act in China’s interests rather than Taiwan’s should be met with the strongest opposition.
In September 2013, the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) quietly released an internal document entitled, “Coursebook on the Military Geography of the Taiwan Strait.” This sensitive, “military-use-only” coursebook explains why it is strategically vital that China “reunify” (annex) Taiwan. It then methodically analyzes various locations of interest to People’s Liberation Army (PLA) war planners. The coursebook highlights one future battlefield in particular: Fulong Beach, in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District, which it describes as “3,000 meters long, flat, and straight,” and located at “the head of Taiwan.” A black and white picture of Fulong’s sandy coastline occupies the
US President Joe Biden’s first news conference last month offered reassuring and concerning insights regarding his administration’s approach to China. Biden did not mention the contentious meeting in Alaska where US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan confronted China’s top two foreign policy officials. The Americans implicitly affirmed the administration of former US president Donald Trump’s direct pushback against communist China’s repressive domestic governance and aggressive international behavior. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) and Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) had explicitly demanded a return to the policies of
Early last month, China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC), officially approved the country’s 14th Five-Year Plan. The strategy was supposed to demonstrate that China has a long-term economic vision that would enable it to thrive, despite its geopolitical contest with the US. However, before the ink on the NPC’s stamp could dry, China had already begun sabotaging the plan’s chances of success. The new plan’s centerpiece is the “dual-circulation” strategy, according to which China would aim to foster growth based on domestic demand and technological self-sufficiency. This would not only reduce China’s reliance on external demand; it would also
Interrupting the assimilation of Xinjiang’s Uighur population would result in an unmanageable national security threat to China. Numerous governments and civil society organizations around the world have accused China of massive human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and labeled Beijing’s inhumane and aggressive social re-engineering efforts in the region as “cultural genocide.” Extensive evidence shows that China’s forceful ethnic assimilation policies in Xinjiang are aimed at replacing Uighur ethnic and religious identity with a so-called scientific communist dogma and Han Chinese culture. The total assimilation of Uighurs into the larger “Chinese family” is also Beijing’s official, central purpose of its ethnic policies