Two very different stories played out on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait on Thursday, but the common denominator was the enforcement of the rule of law, Chinese style, and neither of them were in any way confidence-inspiring, though that was apparently the message that was supposed to be conveyed.
Here in Taipei there were huge smiles and handshakes all round as Straits Exchange Foundation Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) signed an investment protection accord and customs cooperation pact at the Grand Hotel.
The investment protection pact is aimed at establishing a mechanism to resolve government-to-government (notice it was not nation-to-nation), private-to-private and private-to-government (P2G) disputes, and helping protect the rights of Taiwanese businesspeople in China. It will allow investors to seek arbitration, either in China or Taiwan, to resolve disputes.
Three problems are already evident: one, China does not yet have the laws in place to allow for P2G commercial disputes or their resolution; two, there is no requirement for mandatory arbitration; and three, Taiwanese will still be at the mercy of the Chinese legal system, which is barely legal at all.
That legal system was on display on Thursday in Hefei as Gu Kailai (谷開來), wife of former politburo member Bo Xilai (薄熙來), and family aide Zhang Xiaojun (張曉軍) went on trial on the charge of murdering British businessman Neil Heywood in November last year in Chongqing. Neither defendant reportedly contested the charges. Of course neither had the counsel of their choice, being forced to accept government-appointed lawyers. The trial took place nowhere near where the alleged crime was committed. And the entire trial was wrapped up — in a closed courtroom — in seven hours. While the verdict is to be announced later, there is no doubting it will result in either a long jail term or execution.
It seems likely that Gu will be spared execution — she was reportedly “trying to protect her son’s name,” while Zhang, who allegedly administered the poison, gets the death sentence. No mention of Gu’s husband or his vast business dealings or his political ambitions. No mention of whether he will face trial himself or whether the favorite Chinese leadership blame game — blame the wife for all evils — will be played out once again. Of course, the entire script for Thursday’s trial could have been written in advance. That is the convenient thing about having a judicial system under the control of the ruling party that serves to enforce the government’s interests, not the law’s.
That is why it is easy to write the script now for any business dispute that goes into arbitration in China, whether it is on the private level, corporate-to-government, or government-to-government. The odds are stacked against any Taiwanese plaintiff winning an arbitration case, especially if they are going up against entrenched party interests at the local or central government level. It is also unimaginable, laughable even, to think that Beijing would allow any government-to-government dispute to be arbitrated in Taiwan.
The newly inked investment protection accord is not worth the paper it is printed on, no matter what Chiang says. His claim that the investment pact will offer cross-strait investors stronger institutionalized protection in terms of property rights, management rights and personal safety is sheer pap.
In Western legal systems, Lady Justice wears a blindfold to symbolize objectivity. In China, she wears it to demonstrate she cannot see the truth, because it is kept hidden from her.
Taiwanese suffered through too many trials like Gu’s during the White Terror era to believe that there can be any justice in the Chinese judicial system. Chiang and the rest of the government can pretend all they want that something notable has been achieved with the latest cross-strait pact; the average person knows better.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers