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
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS