Ahead of the next round of cross-strait talks in Taichung later this month, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has suggested that visiting Chinese officials be arrested and tried for criminal conduct in China, particularly for human rights abuses. China being what it is, there is a rich selection of such people, and the DPP, if it had its way, could make merry from blocking such officials from visiting Taiwan.
This idea is idealistic but impractical, if not nonsensical. But it does reopen debate on what level of accountability Chinese officials visiting Taiwan should be subjected to. Given that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to this day considers itself to be the most able organization to govern China, and given that Taiwan is supposedly part of China, why would such flotsam not be held accountable for abuses committed against Chinese nationals?
Once again the irony rears its head: The DPP asks a question that inadvertently requires careful thought on the future of cross-strait relations, and the KMT fails to answer it. For the KMT, on every front, on every occasion, economics is the key that will open the door to mutual prosperity and a lasting peace.
This, of course, fails to address the myriad factors that threaten peace in China — from within.
There is a large number of things that the KMT can do to address the legitimate interests of the Chinese people, whether or not Taiwanese are considered among their number. Yet the KMT is barely cognizant of the potential role that Taiwan can — and should — play in China if it is to live up to its purported role of beacon for ordinary Chinese.
Cross-strait ties must learn how to walk before they can run. Trade and financial liberalization is the obvious first step for two countries with economies already closely tied and, thus far, mutually beneficial.
But whatever economic reward or damage might result from this month’s talks, nothing can change the fact that Taiwan’s government offers nothing resembling a policy on how to deal with every other aspect of China, of which politics is a large component, but only one component.
Similarly, when foreign organizations such as the European Chamber of Commerce Taipei (ECCT) uncritically laud more intimate ties with the Chinese, caution is warranted. This is not because of the dangers inherent in closer economic ties — though these are substantial — but because the process of detente requires opening channels of communication in much more sensitive areas that only begin with politics. On such unavoidable issues — what role should Taiwan play in democratizing China and empowering ordinary Chinese? — the silence of the ECCT has been salutary: Give us the benefits, it seems to say, and the little people can worry about the rest, if they can be bothered.
As the debate over the form and intensity of contact with China continues, the problem of addressing social issues in China will be one that Taiwanese political parties will not be able to ignore.
The problem with the KMT and the DPP is that, in a classic mix of ideology and irony, both parties are entirely uninterested in social issues in China, with the exception of relief for natural disasters, but even this focus is motivated by political concerns and not the fate of the common man.
If such ignorance and parochialism continues, Taiwan will be the loser — whoever is in power, and whatever policies are in place.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with