After attending last week’s APEC summit in Beijing as President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) representative, former vice president Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) said the treatment that the Taiwanese contingent received at the event in no way belittled Taiwan. What he did not mention, however, was whether Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) handling of the summit suggests that the nation is at risk of becoming another Hong Kong.
When Siew met with the leaders of China, the US and Japan, he received equal treatment only from Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. That meeting was conducted as it should have been, with the leader and the leader’s representative regarded as being on an equal footing.
One can understand US Secretary of State John Kerry’s manner toward Siew — He was polite, referring to Siew as a former vice president of Taiwan. Still, Siew was there attending a leaders’ summit, and by rights his opposite number should have been US President Barack Obama, not Kerry, who was there to attend the ministerial meetings. Nevertheless, there is no great harm in this, since Kerry does not want Taiwan to become another Puerto Rico.
The Chinese side, on the other hand, defined Siew by his role in the Cross-Straits Common Market Foundation — of which he is chairman — and had him bring a group of business tycoons to his audience with Xi. If the US side’s actions did not belittle Taiwan, this certainly did. This treatment occurred before the leaders’ meeting and after Xi had received Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying (梁振英). Beijing’s intent in behaving like this is clear as day: It wants Ma to be regarded as a local regional head.
When Siew met Xi, Ma was not mentioned, and at an evening banquet, the former vice president was introduced simply as “Mr Siew,” with no official title at all. This all seemed fairly equitable, but when the two men started talking about the so-called “1992 consensus,” it became clear that all that goodwill was a trap.
If there ever was such a thing as the “1992 consensus,” then why did Siew not mention it the year after its supposed inception while he was chairman of the Council for Economic Planning and Development and represented former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) at that year’s APEC leaders’ meeting? Or when former council chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) hit former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) with the “two Chinas at this stage” (階段性兩個中國) idea?
Under former Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) reign, when China was a closed book to the majority of the world, Western leaders had to rely on official photographs and rankings of senior Chinese Communist Party cadres to construe the rise and fall of government officials. If one applies some of these techniques to assess photos from the APEC leaders’ meeting in Beijing, one can infer what may have been going on in the heads of some of those in attendance.
In one image, Xi is shaking hands with Abe — one of them has a thunderous look on his face, while the other looks decidedly uncomfortable. Neither man is looking the other in the eye.
In a photo of Siew and Abe, both men are standing shoulder to shoulder, smiling broadly.
In a joint photograph of Xi and Siew with their wives, the gap between the two men is as wide as the Taiwan Strait. Xi is smiling, but it is evident that it is insincere, while Xi’s wife, Peng Liyuan (彭麗媛), seems to be keeping her distance from her husband, too, although she is closer to him than Siew, who is standing close to his wife, both of whom are sporting quite reserved smiles.
A lot can be worked out about what happened in Beijing from analyzing those three photographs.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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