Those among us who gaze into the future could be forgiven for feeling that the prospects for a free and thriving Taiwan are getting dimmer by the week.
This is mostly because those who should be erecting the foundations for the future of this nation appear to have been shoved aside by giants with dangerously poor hearing. Greater forces — cosmic ones, if we factor in comments made recently by Buddhist Master Hsing Yun (星雲) — all seem to be pushing us toward some inevitable future that has no patience for those who seek to ensure that Taiwan remains a free country.
The administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been selling the economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) — being negotiated between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — in terms that are filled with a sense of inevitability. If Taiwan does not sign an ECFA with China, we are told, we will be marginalized and excluded from regional trade organizations.
Despite widespread fears about the implications of signing a pact with China, or disagreement on how we should proceed, Ma has nixed the idea of holding referendums and said that an ECFA would be signed, no matter what. It does not get more inevitable than this.
Compounding the sense of inevitability is the mystery that surrounds the ECFA talks. Rumor has it that contact between the KMT and the CCP has already begun. And yet, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) last week could not confirm to the Taiwan Foreign Correspondents Club whether this was happening. In fact, not only did Wang — whose duties as head of the legislature include monitoring the executive branch — claim not to know if contacts have indeed begun, but all he could offer was that once the details of an ECFA have been agreed upon, they would be shared with the legislature — not for revision or approval, but simply as a courtesy. In other words, by the time an ECFA reaches the legislature, it would be a fait accompli.
Another worrying development — again something that is well beyond the ability of Taiwanese to control — is Washington’s move toward the creation of a “G2” with China, an exclusive US-China relationship that would go well beyond cooperation on economic matters, and enter the strategic sphere. Should this come into being, the forces of history could very well engulf Taiwan.
Already, major allies of the US in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Japan and India, have voiced concern at the emergence of a “G2,” which they perceive as a plot by Beijing to undermine their influence in the region. Western observers, including Dennis Wilder, a visiting fellow at the John L. Thornton China Center at the Brookings Institution, have been receptive to those fears and highlighted the downsides.
“We [the US] have far more in common with our allies and the region’s democracies than with China,” Wilder wrote in the Washington Post last week.
And yet, not once did Wilder, a former senior director for East Asian affairs at the National Security Council, mention Taiwan. This is a telling omission. If giants like Japan and India risk being undermined by a US-China “G2,” one can only wonder what the arrangement entails for the future of this country.
As the saying goes, when elephants fight, it’s the grass that suffers. In a time when the giants of this world have their eyes fixed on the global economy and increasingly see China as an indispensable ally, small states are likely to be pushed around — and perhaps sacrificed. Unless Taiwan starts making noise now, it could very well become the first “inevitable” democratic casualty of the force of history that is the global financial crisis.
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
In 2009, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) made a welcome move to offer in-house contracts to all outsourced employees. It was a step forward for labor relations and the enterprise facing long-standing issues around outsourcing. TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) once said: “Anything that goes against basic values and principles must be reformed regardless of the cost — on this, there can be no compromise.” The quote is a testament to a core belief of the company’s culture: Injustices must be faced head-on and set right. If TSMC can be clear on its convictions, then should the Ministry of Education
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) provided several reasons for military drills it conducted in five zones around Taiwan on Monday and yesterday. The first was as a warning to “Taiwanese independence forces” to cease and desist. This is a consistent line from the Chinese authorities. The second was that the drills were aimed at “deterrence” of outside military intervention. Monday’s announcement of the drills was the first time that Beijing has publicly used the second reason for conducting such drills. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is clearly rattled by “external forces” apparently consolidating around an intention to intervene. The targets of