The recent remarks by Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Lin Chu-chia (林祖嘉) regarding why the APEC summit this year in Beijing would offer the best chance for a meeting between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) revealed an inconvenient truth about the Ma administration’s political agenda — it tends to internalize cross-strait affairs.
Lin made the comments when he answered questions from foreign envoys in Taiwan at a Ministry of Foreign Affairs briefing on developments in cross-strait negotiations.
A Ma-Xi meeting at the APEC forum in Beijing would leave “room for interpretation” by China that such a meeting is a “domestic affair,” Lin said.
This was a perfect occasion for the Ma administration to spread the message to the diplomatic corps of more than 60 countries that it welcomes a Ma-Xi meeting characterized as “Chinese internal affairs.”
One might argue that Taiwan reserves the right to have its own interpretation.
The problem is that it would not help Taiwan defend its sovereignty, because the Ma administration does not see such a get-together as a meeting between two heads of state, but as a “cross-strait affair,” which blurs the nation’s sovereignty.
Another reason Lin offered for the preference of Ma and Xi meeting at APEC is that Taiwanese have always wished to see the nation represented at the summit by their president rather than the president’s special envoy.
APEC is one of a very few international organizations in which Taiwan has been accepted as a full member — since 1991 — and therefore it is Taiwan’s most important connection to the international community, aside from the WTO.
Before preaching that the proposal is a win-win proposition for all, the government should gauge how much public support it can get for its plan to trade sovereignty for Ma’s potential meeting with Xi.
Taiwan is only able to participate in APEC meetings and activities on an equal basis with other APEC participants under certain conditions.
Among them are that its designation is “Chinese Taipei”; that it is represented at ministerial meetings only by a minister or ministers in charge of APEC-related economic affairs; and that its “foreign minister” or “vice foreign minister” may not attend APEC meetings, alongside other conditions under a memorandum of understanding on the membership of China, Taiwan and Hong Kong signed in 1991.
The terms were negotiated to address Beijing’s concerns over Taiwan’s participation in an inter-governmental organization, but China was not the only factor that determined whether Taiwan could join APEC.
An important factor was the economic leverage that Taiwan had in the late 1980s, which the 12 APEC founding members could not afford to neglect.
As former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) has said, APEC is an organization in which China does not make any decision alone and Taiwan’s economic stature matters more than a nod from Beijing in its decision on the presence of a Taiwanese president.
The 1991 memorandum of understanding, as well as the so-called “Seattle Model,” dating to 1993 when the US did not invite Taiwan’s president to the first informal APEC leaders’ summit in Seattle, already frustrate Taiwanese.
It is even worse that the Ma government seems ready to accept a new formula in which cross-strait affairs can be defined as China’s domestic affairs, while the current approach is at least better in the sense that Taiwan and China are equal at the international table.
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