The climate conference in Copenhagen has become a battlefield for the old controversy between Taiwan and China. Almost like a ritual, Taiwan is not invited to the climate conference despite the fact that its economy, technology and political will are fully capable of contributing to the resolution on climate change, and far better equipped than most of the participating countries.
Quite surprisingly however, Taiwan is not eager to participate despite announcements from the government that “meaningful participation in the UNFCCC is a priority for President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration.”
Taiwan has not applied for observer status at the conference, “missing” the deadline on Aug. 7. In addition, the government supported Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) was listed under China after a symbolic protest from Taiwan.
The climate conference in Copenhagen is therefore a victory for the “one China” policy. The “one China” policy of Denmark and Europe has put longstanding and massive pressure on Taiwan to make it understand that it is a part of China. Therefore, Taiwan did not receive an invitation to the climate conference. This should come as no surprise because the “one China” policy is supported by the Taiwanese government.
No one has asked Taiwanese people whether they accept the “one China” policy despite the fact that several indicators reveal that the UN climate conference and Taiwan’s government are failing to live up to the expectations of Taiwanese. Last Saturday’s local elections and several polls have revealed a loss of support for Ma and the current government’s China policy. In addition, more than 80 percent of Taiwanese refuse to be a part of China, regardless of the model offered. This should arouse thoughts among policy makers in Europe and in Taiwan.
The Taiwanese have good reason to complain about their exclusion from the climate conference, but the Taiwanese government’s complaint is hollow in light of the missing application for observer status and in light of its own moves toward closer political links with China. The government is clearly moving away from self-determination for Taiwan. Surprisingly to many Europeans, Taiwan’s government supports the “one China” policy just as Denmark and Europe does. Therefore, Taiwan’s government just got what it asked for. This is satisfactory to all parties — except the Taiwanese who want to determine their own future.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
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
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS