China’s call on APEC meet
During last year’s APEC summit in Indonesia, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) expressed his willingness to engage Taiwan in political dialogue.
Political issues should not be left to the next generation to resolve, Xi said.
Although the idea of such an unprecedented meeting taking place between the two nation’s leaders remains rather optimistic, champions of the meeting have not given up trying.
APEC was founded in 1989. It currently has 21 members — not all of them sovereign nations. All the APEC heads of state attend the leaders’ meeting under the title of economic leader. Taiwan has been a member since 1991, going by the name “Chinese Taipei,” but Taiwan’s leaders are barred from APEC summits due to objections from China, which claims sovereignty over the nation. To avoid political complications, Taiwan is traditionally represented by a retired politician rather than a sitting president.
APEC was designed for economic leaders to meet without using their official titles, and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) reiterated his hope to meet with Xi at next month’s APEC meeting, saying that it would be a convenient venue to sidestep the thorny issues of non-recognition between the two sides. Thus, Taipei [was] still trying to persuade Beijing to agree to a historic meeting between the top leaders this year.
It is generally believed that a Ma-Xi meeting would be more symbolic than substantial. However, if it happens, it would be a great achievement in itself. If Beijing were willing to signal to 23 million people in Taiwan that it is willing to take on the cross-strait issue, the best way to do so would be to agree to the meeting.
The meeting is scheduled for Nov. 10 and 11 in Beijing and the ball is in China’s court. While maintaining its principles, Beijing should be strategically flexible and creative in a bid to help sustain peace across the Taiwan Strait.
Can Ma and Xi meet? Can Beijing maintain firmness in principle, without forgetting the need for flexibility, creative thinking and groundbreaking approaches? It all depends on Xi.
If Beijing passes up this rare opportunity to hold a landmark meeting, any regret will be too late.
Kent Wang
Potomac Falls, Virginia
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS