Critics of Israel often argue that building settlements inside Palestinian territory belies the stated intention to work toward a two-state solution. By creating facts on the ground, critics argue, Israel is making it impossible for Palestinians to create a viable, independent state, thus condemning the two peoples to a shared future of uncertainty.
The problem with facts on the ground is that once they have been created, it is extremely difficult to undo them. When it comes to the Israeli settlements, turning back the clock would mean dismantling housing for more than a quarter of a million Israelis in the West Bank.
Throughout the years, many Israelis — and most Palestinians — have strongly opposed these settlements, but a succession of Israeli governments either did nothing to prevent “natural growth” or adopted policies that encouraged their expansion. As a result, these facts on the ground have made conflict resolution much more difficult.
There is a lesson here that every Taiwanese should keep in mind as the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) create their own facts on the ground in the Taiwan Strait.
Through a series of accords and possibly an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) sometime next year, Taiwan’s fate is becoming dangerously coupled to China’s. Just as in Israel, decisions about a people’s future are being made without the consent of a large swath of the population.
This raises two scenarios.
First, every pact signed with China takes Taiwan closer to what could be called a geopolitical event horizon — the point at which the process of unification is simply a matter of time.
As long as both sides see developments as beneficial, momentum toward Beijing’s desired result will be relatively smooth.
The second arises if, a few years down the road, Taiwan’s leadership elects to change course and avoid this threshold of inevitability. This would likely see the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) regaining power in 2012.
But after four years of added facts on the ground in the Taiwan Strait, it is difficult to imagine how a DPP government could turn back the clock — or at least do so without paying very dearly.
For one, China would not give in — just as Israel has refused to bend to international pressure to stop building, let alone entirely dismantle, its settlements in the West Bank.
Furthermore, the DPP government would be hostage, more than ever exposed to Chinese blackmail and threats of retaliation should it seek to weaken the various ties forged by its predecessor. Once again, a DPP government would be seen as a troublemaker, one that risks sparking war in the Taiwan Strait. This is the refrain we are bound to hear in the lead-up to elections in 2012.
The assumption within the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the CCP seems to be that cross-strait rapprochement is inevitable.
Perhaps so. But another assumption — a dangerously naive assumption — appears to be that the KMT will never lose its hold on power.
All the facts on the ground that are beginning to appear in the Taiwan Strait have the potential to be seeds of bitter conflict only a few years from now.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and