After years of assailing our ears with notions of “win-win” situations President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has now latched onto a new term that, unfortunately for us, he now seems intent on milking dry: “soft power.”
No sooner had US political scientist Joseph Nye, the person who coined the overused and oft misused term, left after a quick visit earlier this month than Ma was borrowing it to describe his policies over the past two-and-a-half years. All of a sudden, Ma’s body of work appeared to blossom into a monument to so-called soft power, which, if we looked closely enough, was a euphemism for everything the administration of his predecessor, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), supposedly was not.
It was soft power, Ma claimed, that recently led the EU and Canadian governments to grant Republic of China (ROC) passport holders visa-waiver treatment. Never mind that governments decide whether to grant exemptions on the basis of such practical considerations as the security of travel documents. In this case, those requirements included the introduction of biometric passports in 2008 — first issued after Ma came into office, granted, but the result of policies implemented under the Chen administration.
In other words, visa exemptions were granted because manifold requirements were met, not because of soft power a la Ma. In the case of the EU, this happened because last month visa waiver rights to enter Taiwan were granted to Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania, the only Schengen countries whose citizens still had to apply for visas to visit.
Beyond the inherent dishonesty, such plagiarism constitutes a cynical (and in this case, self-serving, since Ma couldn’t help but highlight the contrasts between his administration and Chen’s) misrepresentation of cause and effect in international relations. Ma’s message stems from the invidious perception that the Democratic Progressive Party under Chen was a “troublemaker.” Conversely, Ma’s administration has harnessed soft power, he tells us, and consequently good things are coming the country’s way.
However, by seeking to join the UN and other organizations, and implementing measures that would make ROC passports more palatable to other countries, didn’t Chen’s administration also rely on soft power? That visa exemptions didn’t occur under its watch has far more to do with the long and convoluted processes involved rather than Chen being a “troublemaker” and Ma a “peacemaker.”
Ultimately, Taiwanese can now enjoy preferential treatment when traveling abroad because of their long tradition of soft power as respectful, law--abiding, wealthy travelers, which has nothing to do with the kind of soft power Ma has attempted to arrogate to himself and his administration. Why Taiwanese can now travel to Canada and EU nations (and 53 other countries) without a visa is because Taiwanese pose a far lower security risk (in terms of espionage, disease, smuggling and so on) than, say, Chinese or North Koreans. Ma did not invent this reputation and it can be credited to one source and one source alone — the people of Taiwan.
Ma was lucky; after years of hard work by a constellation of agencies, the conditions are now ripe for such developments. To claim that this is happening because of his government’s two-and-a-half years of soft power is dishonest and risks creating expectations that Ma’s administration simply will not be able to deliver on. After all, if all it took to obtain favors from other countries was soft power, nothing could prevent Taiwan from joining UN agencies, or getting the international space that it deserves.
In September 2013, the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) quietly released an internal document entitled, “Coursebook on the Military Geography of the Taiwan Strait.” This sensitive, “military-use-only” coursebook explains why it is strategically vital that China “reunify” (annex) Taiwan. It then methodically analyzes various locations of interest to People’s Liberation Army (PLA) war planners. The coursebook highlights one future battlefield in particular: Fulong Beach, in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District, which it describes as “3,000 meters long, flat, and straight,” and located at “the head of Taiwan.” A black and white picture of Fulong’s sandy coastline occupies the
US President Joe Biden’s first news conference last month offered reassuring and concerning insights regarding his administration’s approach to China. Biden did not mention the contentious meeting in Alaska where US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan confronted China’s top two foreign policy officials. The Americans implicitly affirmed the administration of former US president Donald Trump’s direct pushback against communist China’s repressive domestic governance and aggressive international behavior. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) and Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) had explicitly demanded a return to the policies of
Early last month, China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC), officially approved the country’s 14th Five-Year Plan. The strategy was supposed to demonstrate that China has a long-term economic vision that would enable it to thrive, despite its geopolitical contest with the US. However, before the ink on the NPC’s stamp could dry, China had already begun sabotaging the plan’s chances of success. The new plan’s centerpiece is the “dual-circulation” strategy, according to which China would aim to foster growth based on domestic demand and technological self-sufficiency. This would not only reduce China’s reliance on external demand; it would also
Interrupting the assimilation of Xinjiang’s Uighur population would result in an unmanageable national security threat to China. Numerous governments and civil society organizations around the world have accused China of massive human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and labeled Beijing’s inhumane and aggressive social re-engineering efforts in the region as “cultural genocide.” Extensive evidence shows that China’s forceful ethnic assimilation policies in Xinjiang are aimed at replacing Uighur ethnic and religious identity with a so-called scientific communist dogma and Han Chinese culture. The total assimilation of Uighurs into the larger “Chinese family” is also Beijing’s official, central purpose of its ethnic policies