China has said it will start using the controversial M503 air route, which it had designated unilaterally, today. Taiwan’s government has not only failed to put up any significant opposition, but even went as far as defending China’s actions — and this appeasement is only likely to put Taiwan in a more dangerous situation.
Members of the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) on Friday staged a surprise protest over the government’s inaction on China’s decision to implement the air route. Political activist groups blocked the main entrance of the Legislative Yuan while TSU legislators took over the podium to protest the air route, urging the government to take action.
Sadly, but not surprisingly, though the government said that it is not happy with the new air route, it still sides with China, instead of backing its own people as it should.
In fact, when China first announced the air route, which runs close to the median line in the Taiwan Strait — the de facto boundary between Taiwan and China — the government voiced its concerns over national security and protested, leading China to move the route to the west by six nautical miles (11km) and postpone its implementation.
Responding to China’s “compromise,” Mainland Affairs Council Minister Andrew Hsia (夏立言) said at the time that he was not satisfied.
However, when China pressed on and declared that it will start using the flight route, the government changed its mind overnight, and said that the decision was acceptable.
While the government might be powerless to overturn the decision, and the civilian flight route might not really pose a threat to Taiwan’s national security — as some government officials said — it does not mean that the government cannot at least express a firm opinion, especially considering that China had designated the flight route unilaterally, without consulting Taiwan.
The government’s reaction should not surprise anyone, because it has held a placatory attitude when dealing with cross-strait issues since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office in 2008, and the controversy surrounding the M503 flight route is only the latest example.
Ma has been bragging about his “achievements” in maintaining peaceful development in cross-strait relations, and the number of agreements that his government has signed with China during his term.
However, that the government under Ma’s leadership never hesitated to make concessions on just about everything to China in cross-strait talks, is nothing to be proud of.
Ma would even tell the public that some agreements must be signed, sometimes even going as far as saying that they should be inked before a certain date — putting pressure on Taiwan’s own negotiators and giving Chinese negotiators the upper hand.
No one negotiates like this, not in business — and never in politics.
Responding to criticism, Ma defended himself by saying that there is always “give and take” in negotiations. However, there is a big difference between “give” and “give up.”
Ma’s attitude in dealing with cross-strait issues might remind some people of former British prime minister Neville Chamberlain in the 1930s, who, in an effort to avoid a war with Nazi Germany, agreed to many unreasonable demands by Adolf Hitler.
Chamberlain’s appeasement policy eventually failed to spare millions of Europeans from war, and it is worrisome that Ma’s appeasement policy might also only serve to maintain a phony peaceful development in cross-strait relations.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Taiwan’s business-friendly environment and science parks designed to foster technology industries are the key elements of the nation’s winning chip formula, inspiring the US and other countries to try to replicate it. Representatives from US business groups — such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council, and the Arizona-Taiwan Trade and Investment Office — in July visited the Hsinchu Science Park (新竹科學園區), home to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) headquarters and its first fab. They showed great interest in creating similar science parks, with aims to build an extensive semiconductor chain suitable for the US, with chip designing, packaging and manufacturing. The
RSS