Make no mistake: China’s influence over Taiwan’s domestic affairs is growing, and quickly.
The modus operandi is all too familiar. Beijing gets wind of a proposed deal or event, cries foul and a government, company or charitable group that was about to complete a transaction of some sort with Taiwan is forced to renege on the deal.
This scenario has played out hundreds, if not thousands, of times in the six decades since Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) humiliated Nationalist regime decamped to Taiwan, forcing the Chinese Communist Party to declare Taiwan an “inalienable part of the Motherland.”
In the last 20 years or so as China’s economic and diplomatic clout has grown, the small number of countries prepared to ignore China’s threats and seal sensitive deals with Taiwan has diminished rapidly.
It has now reached the point where just one country — the US — is willing to suffer the consequences of Chinese saber-rattling by selling Taipei advanced weaponry. But these days, even in the face of well over 1,000 ballistic missiles and arguably the fastest modernizing military in history, Taiwan’s legitimate defense needs are forced to take a back seat as Washington places more value on maintaining cordial ties with authoritarians.
While Taiwan cannot be blamed for this trend — whether or not other countries are prepared to stare down Beijing’s threats is entirely their responsibility — Taipei is entirely responsible for the latest manifestation of this worrying phenomenon. The problem now is that this enduring international obstacle is beginning to rear its sinister head at home.
The risks of deepening ties with — and hence increased dependency on — China that came with the commencement of unofficial business links in the 1980s have, under the blinkered “China first” policy of the present government, begun to manifest themselves in new and more insidious ways.
The latest incident involves culture. The Kaohsiung City Government is considering pulling the documentary The 10 Conditions of Love about exiled Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer from the Kaohsiung Film Festival after Chinese tourists supposedly canceled bookings en masse.
This is a confusing development, because this approach to the Uighur controversy is most inconsistent with Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu’s (陳菊) embrace of the Dalai Lama last month.
Coupled with evidence that the central government refused foreign aid in the wake of Typhoon Morakot last month until after it consulted Beijing, as well as new Premier Wu Den-yih’s (吳敦義) recent meetings with influential Chinese political figures in Hong Kong before accepting his appointment, the question therefore emerges: Who is running Taiwan these days?
The relationship that Taiwan is forging with China and the Ma government’s indifference toward exercising this nation’s sovereignty mean that Taiwan is disappearing from the radar of international credibility faster than even skeptics could have imagined.
Each new deal that central and regional governments strike with Beijing resembles one of the strings that the Lilliputians used to tie down Gulliver: Every new thread, however innocuous in itself, makes it harder and harder for Taiwan to free itself.
That China has influence on the way other countries deal with Taiwan is one thing, but when domestic affairs, be they cultural, economic, political or diplomatic, have to be run past Beijing before proceeding, it’s time for the alarm bells to start ringing.
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
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had