Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) was defeated by a surprisingly wide margin, as she failed to add the last piece to the puzzle of Taiwan’s democracy.
According to theory, after 30 years of urbanization, Taiwanese politics should now be in the hands of manager-type politicians. Both President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Tsai are examples of this type of figure.
The fact that the gap was so large implies that social forces have changed. The most likely explanation is that Beijing has used China-based Taiwanese businesspeople to turn Taiwan into a vassal state.
It is the responsibility of politicians to find out and then discuss the matter. Becoming either dispirited or resentful is unproductive.
On the other hand, as Taiwanese businesspeople lined up to support Ma, the US announced that it would add Taiwan to the candidate list for its visa-waiver program and sent four deputy secretaries to monitor the later stages of the campaign.
It even allowed former American Institute in Taiwan director Douglas Paal to make political comments just two days before the election. Although Washington twice stated that it would maintain strict neutrality during the elections and said that Paal was just a civilian, such actions were not the best way to pave the way for the US’ “return to Asia.”
Judging from Ma’s incompetence and carelessness, there are grounds for concern about Taiwan’s decay. Since he will no longer have to answer to voters at the ballot box, will he hurry to realize his true intention of a peace accord or a political agreement with Beijing? From the dictatorial bent he demonstrated during the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with China, both Taiwan and neighboring countries should pay greater attention to this.
A peace agreement would be welcomed by all, but the main problem would be the actual terms of such an agreement. Would the two parties to an agreement be a central government and a group of rebels, two equal governments or individual camps? And more seriously, the purpose of a peace accord is to end a state of war, and we are going to have to spend a tremendous amount of energy to reverse and compensate for the changes and losses of human life and assets during wartime.
How are we going to compensate for civilian casualties? Will the Bank of Taiwan apply for permission to reopen the 35 branches it had in China before its relocation to Taiwan? Should the National Palace Museum return its collections to China?
How should we evaluate and return the assets of the four major banks? Will heirs in Taiwan be able to apply for compensation for assets confiscated by the Chinese government, both business and personal assets? How could this be done?
The KMT’s assets include assets transferred from China and public and private Japanese assets seized in Taiwan. Will it offer any compensation, and how? All these problems are significant issues that should not be handled rashly.
Does the agreement Ma wants deal only with the Chinese Civil War, or will it deal with conflict during World War II and the Cold War? In the first case, China and Taiwan can handle the issue themselves, but in the second, they must invite two other parties — the US and Japan — to four-party talks, a complicated situation.
Finally, the most serious implication is that Taiwan has gradually become a Chinese vassal state. This is a development that neighboring countries must not overlook.
HoonTing is a writer.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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