As a former US diplomat with a keen interest in Taiwan and its future, I am concerned about the present row between Taipei and Manila over the sad and unfortunate death of Taiwanese fisherman Hung Shih-cheng (洪石成) after an encounter between a Taiwanese fishing boat and the Philippine Coast Guard on May 9.
Emotions are running high and angry accusations are being leveled in both directions. This is unfortunate and could have been avoided if everyone had maintained a cool head and proceeded in a reasonable and rational manner.
First and foremost, it is important that a clear and objective assessment of what actually happened be established. The Philippines is taking a lead in that, but Taiwan can help by not jumping to conclusions or making fiery accusations. Terms like “cold-blooded murder” — found on the front page of the Web site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs — are seen as premature by the international community (certainly before an investigation) and unhelpful.
To come to a mutually agreeable settlement, the Philippines must go out of its way to establish the truth, but Taiwan must go the extra mile not to be confrontational. In diplomacy it is always better if both sides participate in a give-and-take. Hard and fast ultimatums do not help and are counterproductive.
Instead, the two sides need to reduce the tension and tone down the rhetoric. As the US Department of State recently said: Washington is concerned by the increase in tensions between two neighboring democracies and close partners of the US in the Asia-Pacific region, and urges the two countries to take all appropriate measures to clarify disagreements and prevent the recurrence of tragic events. The State Department also urged both parties to refrain from actions that could further escalate tensions in the region and undermine the prospects for a rapid and effective resolution of differences.
However, there is another aspect that worries me: the role of China. One of the reasons why the Filipinos are edgy about their territorial waters is that China has been aggressively encroaching into areas that have traditionally been under control of the Philippines, such as the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島).
The incident thus plays into China’s hands. Right after the altercation, Xinhua news agency reported that China’s Taiwan Affairs Office was condemning the event as a “barbaric act.”
Quoting a Chinese academic, the Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece Beijing Times said: “China has reiterated over time that Taiwan is an integral part of China. Now is a good opportunity to show that China will not tolerate the shooting of our fishermen, whether they are from the mainland or Taiwan, and that our government is determined to protect the life of its people.”
Taiwan must make clear that it is rejecting such united front tactics and that it is not aligning itself with China in an attempt to push Manila into a corner.
Taiwan and the Philippines are both democracies. This means that both have to be sensitive to the voices of the people, but it also means that there must be leadership and vision, and decisions and actions should not be guided by angry emotions or vitriolic nationalism.
A way out is possible if both sides agree to examine the evidence in a rational and objective fashion. The Philippines needs to be forthcoming with all information pertaining to the chain of events that led to the shooting and Taiwan needs to display patience and calm. It needs to avoid inflammatory language that increases tensions -— cooler heads must prevail.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Sept. 6 finished its annual national congress. However, if Taiwan wants to have a viable opposition party in its democracy, the results were far from satisfying. The KMT again seems to be caught in a time loop, like that one in the 1993 film Groundhog Day. Yet, unlike the protagonist in that film, the KMT seems unable to learn from past experience and change for the better. Instead, it remains locked in its never-ending cycle of repeating the past. To borrow from a different artistic genre, the KMT echoes Pete Seeger’s song Where Have All