Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) is scheduled to arrive in Taipei today for talks. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) says that the four agreements due to be signed at Chen’s meeting with Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) are necessary for Taiwan, and he has sought to dispel fears of a sellout. He says the agreements will be enormously beneficial to Taiwan’s development.
Many people, however, do not believe Ma. Several groups plan to protest during Chen’s visit, and the list of activities includes egg throwing, sit-ins, rallies and sieges. Seven thousand police officers will be mobilized and razor-wire barriers laid down to contain the protesters. Taipei City will not be a peaceful place for the next few days.
Although the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are now reconciled and ready to sign agreements, the KMT has not achieved a consensus on cross-strait policy with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
During the 1993 SEF-ARATS meeting in Singapore, then-DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) staged a protest outside the talks venue. Now, as then, the major political conflict affecting cross-strait relations is not between the KMT and the CCP, but between the KMT and the DPP. Eight years of DPP government did not change this fundamental dichotomy.
Where do the KMT and DPP differ? Actually, the agreements to be signed at this SEF-ARATS meeting hardly differ from proposals mooted under the DPP administration. The real difference will be in the atmosphere of the talks and the symbols related to national sovereignty. The real point of sensitivity lies in whether Taiwan’s welcome for Chen and his attitude to the government and people of Taiwan are in the spirit of mutual equality and dignity.
Pressed by reporters, Ma recently asked: “Can you give me one example of anything I have done to sell out Taiwan?”
It is true that Ma has done nothing specific to sell out the country. He has, however, referred to Taiwan as an “area” and said that Chen can call him “Mr Ma” rather than “president.” Ma defended himself by saying that the terms “Taiwan area” and “mainland area” were written into the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China in 1992. But Ma’s remark constitutes a retreat for Taiwan’s desire for sovereignty back to the situation 16 years ago, and is out of line with public opinion today. For a president to back down from recognizing his own status in his own country for fear of offending China is a worrying show of weakness.
Neither Ma nor China really understand Taiwanese public opinion or the concerns of Taiwan’s opposition parties. What Chen needs to do to make a good impression on Taiwanese does not hinge on the content of agreements. It cannot be achieved by giving Taiwan pandas, nor by shedding crocodile tears as ARATS Vice Chairman Zhang Mingqing (張銘清) did during his recent visit. The key question is whether Chen respects the feelings of Taiwanese and whether he will address Ma as “president.”
Public support for Ma and his government has fallen to less than 30 percent. Ma sees this week’s talks as a golden opportunity to regain popularity with a breakthrough in cross-strait relations. Of course the agreements themselves will bring some benefits, but China’s real attitude to Taiwan will be revealed by exactly what Chen says when he meets Ma. This will be the real test of Chen’s visit, cross-strait relations and Ma’s popularity.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past