China makes no secret of its ambition to annex Taiwan with its “united front” tactics. Government decisionmakers in Taiwan must be more alert when formulating cross-strait policy, a solemn matter — as former national policy advisor Rex How (郝明義) put it, “a matter of life and death” — that has direct consequences for Taiwan.
A growing number of Taiwanese have criticisms of the cross-strait service trade agreement. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) should empathize with their worries in the same way as, in his opinion, China has adopted a softer and more delicate manner in dealing with cross-strait relations.
“In recent years, both Chinese academics and officials have gained more confidence in dealing with cross-strait relations and become more soft and flexible in dealing with Taiwan,” then-Taipei mayor Ma said in January 2003. “This is something over which the Taiwanese government should exercise caution in mapping out its cross-strait policies.”
“If China always threatens Taiwan by saying it will never renounce the use of force against Taiwan, it will further boost Taiwan’s solidarity. However, if China uses a soft approach, it might aggravate internal splits within Taiwanese society,” he said. Ma went on to advise the then-Democratic Progressive Party administration that it “should deal with this with meticulous care and try to reach a domestic consensus soon; otherwise, it will be very disadvantageous to Taiwan.”
Fast-forward to the present, with Ma himself now dictating the nation’s policy directions: He is well advised to revisit his statements and heed warnings about China’s “sugar-coated poison” that came straight from the horse’s mouth.
Under the agreement, China would open 80 service sub-sectors to Taiwan, while Taiwan would open 64 sub-sectors to China. While a casual glance at the numbers might suggest that China is giving greater benefits to Taiwan, there is more to this than meets the eye.
The sectors opened to China include commerce, telecommunications, distribution, health, tourism, entertainment, culture, transportation and finance. A close study of the agreement — which was not made public until after it was signed in Shanghai on June 21 — suggests that one sector actually includes a wide range of sub-industries that exceeds the “64 sub-
sectors” touted by the Ma government.
A former official of the Ma administration is among its critics. Former finance minister and Council for Economic Planning and Development minister Christina Liu (劉憶如), predicting the impacts of the agreement, said it was “worrisome” that the government has not mapped out adequate supplementary measures to care for the affected industries.
Bureau of Foreign Trade Director-General Chang Chun-fu (張俊福) argued that the agreement would not have negative effects on Taiwan’s workers other than seeing many of their employers change to be Chinese nationals, just like others who may have foreign nationals as their company bosses. However, he missed one crucial fact: Apart from those from China, none of the foreign employers harbor the malicious intent to call Taiwan a part of their own territory.
In response to the concerns expressed by academics, industry experts and service operators over potential adverse repercussions, the Internal Administration Committee, entrusted by the legislature’s plenary session following intra-party negotiation, will hold another 16 rounds of public hearings to gauge opinions before the legislative review of the pact.
While opponents of the agreement may for now breathe a sigh of relief, they must keep a watchful eye on proceedings.
It is also hoped that the president, who should be well aware of what is at stake for Taiwan when negotiating intricate cross-strait relations, will come to his senses before it is too late.
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