Before signing agreements with a country that regularly expresses animosity toward Taiwan, and which dreams day and night of annexing it, nothing could be more prudent than looking out for the devil in the detail.
The latest agreements signed by Straits Exchange Foundation Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) of China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait on cooperation in fighting crime are a good example of this. Lacking due care and strategic acumen, the government has failed to enunciate its stance on the matter, instead deferring to China’s agenda.
At a glance, the cross-strait agreement on crime appears wholly beneficial to both sides. They have agreed to repatriate criminals and suspected criminals and to jointly act against criminal organizations and individuals. The pact has been hailed as a success as China has long been a place where Taiwanese criminals and criminal suspects can find shelter.
According to the agreement, all criminal acts are subject to cross-strait jurisdiction, particularly noting (a) major crimes such as murder, robbery, kidnapping, smuggling of arms and other items, and drug and human trafficking, (b) white-collar crimes such as embezzlement, breach of trust, money laundering and counterfeiting, (c) corruption, bribery and professional negligence, and (d) terrorist crimes such as hijacking aircraft or boats.
However, a closer look at the pact — the fifth clause, to be precise — offers the skeptical observer cause for alarm by foreshadowing chilling changes that would complement Beijing’s agenda.
In Beijing’s eyes, violations of its “Anti-Secession Law” constitute a criminal offense. Such violations include advocacy of Taiwan’s independence or firmer actions in that regard, as well as any number of other “separatist” activities.
Two simple examples can clarify this. Should the Dalai Lama set foot in Taiwan again, China could regard his presence in Taiwan to be an offense under the terms of the fifth clause and request that Taiwan extradite him. If Chinese dissident Wang Dan (王丹), the prominent Tiananmen Square Democracy Movement student leader, visits Taiwan again, China could cite the fifth clause and request repatriation.
Some may rush to dismiss such scenarios as far-fetched, especially given that any extradition requires the other government’s agreement, but the truth is that the fifth clause has now given room for those in Taiwan’s government who oppose independence or other political agendas to act against their compatriots or threaten to do so.
The list could go on: What about Falun Gong practitioners? Tibetan expatriates and sympathizers? Or labor activists?
Taiwan has long been praised as a beacon for democracy in Asia, and the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has often touted Taiwan’s democracy as an accomplishment that Taiwanese should be proud of. But talk is cheap.
The Ma government must address by word and by deed the brittle credibility of the judiciary and strengthen its stance on human rights and freedom of religion and expression everywhere.
This would help assure Ma’s many skeptics that Beijing’s penchant for skulduggery can be prevented from corrupting fundamental Taiwanese values of openness and diversity.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS