A lot has been made of Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu’s (陳菊) comments during her trip to China last week to promote this summer’s World Games after she used the words “President Ma [Ying-jeou, 馬英九]” and “central government” during a meeting with the mayor of Beijing.
Chen became the first high-profile Taiwanese official to make such comments on the record in China. Chen’s actions have received a lot of domestic media attention and earned her rare praise from politicians across the political spectrum.
Although her comments were censored by Chinese television, she succeeded in reminding people that it is possible to travel to China and meet senior Chinese officials while upholding Taiwan’s dignity.
Chen’s behavior is in stark contrast to that of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄), who during a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) on Tuesday referred to the situation in Taiwan using the term daonei (島內), or “on the island.”
Wu could not find a suitable opportunity to mention “Taiwan,” let alone use words that hinted at Taiwan’s sovereign status. The excuse given by KMT officials afterwards was that Wu’s terminology was a product of his upbringing.
This just doesn’t wash.
But then again, Taiwanese should not expect less from Wu, who has often shown himself to be no champion of titles, regularly referring to the president as “Mr Ma.”
As well as highlighting the cowardice of top KMT officials such as Wu and former chairman Lien Chan (連戰), Chen’s trip was a reminder that, contrary to what the KMT would have us believe, it is possible to achieve positive results when dealing with China — and to do so with self-respect.
The blaze of propaganda surrounding Ma’s cross-strait “success” since the KMT returned to office has blurred the achievements during the eight years of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government from 2000 until last year. During that time, Taiwanese companies were allowed to invest billions of dollars in China, much more than had been allowed under previous KMT governments. But the government never felt it had to belittle Taiwan to achieve its goals.
It was the DPP that in 2001 initiated the “small three links” and later started cross-strait flights during holiday periods with a view to eventually upgrading them. It also completed negotiations on cross-strait charter flights.
The Chinese held off on implementing them for fear of giving the DPP government a propaganda coup. Instead, it waited to let the KMT earn all the glory after it regained power.
The DPP also made the first tentative steps toward opening the country to Chinese tourists, although it was skeptical about letting too many visit at a time, and with good reason.
The problem for the DPP was that it failed to properly publicize these achievements, allowing them to be drowned out by endless attacks from the opposition and the pro-unification media.
While relations between Taiwan and China were far from perfect during its tenure, the DPP at least demonstrated that it is not necessary to denigrate Taiwan to earn economic concessions from Beijing. If only so much could be said of the present government.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS