The issue of whether Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊) should have visited China has caused debate within the pan-green camp. China’s existence is a fact that Taiwan cannot ignore. It is inevitable that Taiwan has to deal with China and that refusing to do so is not an option. The key issue is how Taiwan should go about it.
When the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was in power, they did not refuse to deal with China. The problem was that China refused to deal with the DPP. The pan-green camp should therefore establish a model for how to deal with China aimed at highlighting the differences between its approach and the approach of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
So how should members of the pan-green camp deal with China and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)?
First of all, they should clarify Taiwan’s status, a precondition for establishing equality. Taiwan has never denied the existence of the People’s Republic of China, but China refuses to recognize Taiwan’s sovereignty, and Ma has never protested against this. The pan-green camp must establish a status that does not allow the denigration of Taiwan.
They should also choose which issues to discuss with China. Taiwan has its own advantages. On a political level, these advantages are freedom, democracy and human rights, and on an economic level, they lie in the high-tech field. The pan-green camp needs to focus on Taiwan’s strong points in dealing with China. For example, they must refuse the recent practice of Taiwanese politicians going to China to “worship their ancestors” because this is part of China’s united front strategy and a nationalist ruse to present China as Taiwan’s ancestor.
They should further choose the timing of their dealings with China carefully because timing can either help or hurt negotiations. Chen filed her application to visit before the May 17 demonstrations. This information was leaked in an attempt to weaken the demonstration, but luckily, it was not enough to affect the protest.
In addition, they must also strictly adhere to the principle of avoiding conflicts of interest, and anyone with vested interests in China should not be sent there.
During the talks, they should act with self-respect but avoid being arrogant, and there is no need to make statements designed to upset the CCP. They should adopt an equanimous attitude and make clear their commitment to Taiwan’s sovereignty, freedom and human rights at appropriate times.
Furthermore, they should also analyze as many outcomes as possible. Any willingness on behalf of the CCP to communicate with the pan-green camp is aimed at taking over Taiwan, so the pan-greens must consider all possible outcomes that negotiations could have and prepare as many responses as possible.
Finally, they should follow up on important issues. For example, parts of Chen’s speeches were cut from broadcasts in China, so other pan-green members visiting China should bring this up. This would also demonstrate the importance of press freedom and pan-green unity.
Dealing with China is battle in itself and although sometimes a certain amount of compromise is necessary, we cannot always expect results, as that will require sacrificing too many principles. If negotiations break down, the reasons for failure should be explained so the Taiwanese public and the international community can see the unreasonable nature of the CCP.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Many foreigners, particularly Germans, are struck by the efficiency of Taiwan’s administration in routine matters. Driver’s licenses, household registrations and similar procedures are handled swiftly, often decided on the spot, and occasionally even accompanied by preferential treatment. However, this efficiency does not extend to all areas of government. Any foreigner with long-term residency in Taiwan — just like any Taiwanese — would have encountered the opposite: agencies, most notably the police, refusing to accept complaints and sending applicants away at the counter without consideration. This kind of behavior, although less common in other agencies, still occurs far too often. Two cases
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
RSS