With the support of more than 40 nations and territories, the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is expected to be established at the conclusion of negotiations sometime in the middle of this year. According to the memorandum of understanding signed by 21 nations, the AIIB headquarters will be set up in Beijing and have authorized capital of US$100 billion, half of which China has committed to provide.
Taiwan scrambled to apply to be a founding member, joining a list of nations including, among others, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Russia, Egypt, Australia, South Korea and Saudi Arabia. The AIIB is expected to both cooperate and compete with the Asian Development Bank (ADB), which is led by Japan and the US. This will have an effect on Asian regional connectivity and economic integration, and so the US and Japan stand beside the ADB and have not applied to join the AIIB.
One of the main diplomatic focuses of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration is to help Taiwan’s trade relations. Taiwan’s participation in the ADB faces constraints and it failed to join the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, in which China wields much influence. Given this situation, an obvious policy option was to join the ADB as it granted access to many important emerging markets.
Unfortunately, the Ma administration still does not operate political dialogue, which leads to public misunderstanding of how “normal” nations get things done. According to news reports, the US does not like the idea of its allies joining the AIIB. However, even if the Ma administration has little room to maneuver, it should at least let the public know about the technical difficulties it is facing.
No one expected the government to be so vague in explaining its intent for Taiwan to join such an organization; simply saying that the final decision was made in an inter-ministerial meeting, convened by the president, that asked the Ministry of Finance to prepare a letter of intent, which the Mainland Affairs Council then asked China’s Taiwan Affairs Office to forward to the interim Secretariat for Establishing the AIIB after it was approved by the Cabinet.
It was only after criticism in news reports and social media about the Ma administration being pro-China and humiliating Taiwan in its handling of international affairs that the government explained how the letter was delivered: The ministry faxed the letter on the same day directly to the interim Secretariat for Establishing the AIIB.
The incomplete information provided led to the government losing the initiative for fostering political dialogue. This cannot be blamed on the government spokesperson, but rather on the failure of the whole government’s communication mechanisms and lack of horizontal transparency.
Even more puzzling is that government departments often invite lecturers to talk about how to improve political and media communication. Only a few months ago, the Presidential Office and the Cabinet called upon so-called “Internet wizards” to give officials lessons on how to communicate with netizens.
However, the government’s latest failure in transparent communication has once again led to the anti-China camp — and citizens and organizations that have lost faith in Ma’s administration — to do some saber rattling.
A Chinese saying states: “Past things that are not forgotten will be a guide for things to come.”
How is it that the government seems to often remember things from the past, yet never manages to use it as a guide for the future?
Huang Kwei-bo is an associate professor in the Department of Diplomacy at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Zane Kheir
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing