No matter how significant it might appear in the international media, the meeting between New Taipei City Mayor and KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in China tomorrow is a meeting of the past.
The cross-strait bubble burst more than a year ago with the Sunflower movement’s occupation of the Legislative Yuan’s main chamber, and any attempts to go back to the good old days are destined to fail due to a new reality.
In the new reality, Taiwanese want politicians who consider problems in the streets and homes across the nation as their genuine concern and top priority. This new reality is slowly spreading in Europe. However, right up to point when the cross-strait bubble burst, many politicians and journalists in Europe thought that relations between Taiwan and China were better than ever and publicly praised past trade agreements as a prerequisite for peace, prosperity and mutual understanding. However, they were living in a fantasy world.
Previous political debates about cross-strait relations can be compared to overheated financial markets. As Danish philosopher Vincent Henricks highlighted, political positions can get overheated as well. When the cross-strait debate was overheated, its proponents were not willing to listen to other standpoints.
In such an environment, increased inequality, youth unemployment, demolition of housing, the fight for media freedom and the worrisome democratic development in Taiwan were to a large extent neglected and considered as small ripples across the water that would soon fade.
Except for capital punishment, the EU has not criticized Taiwan regarding democratic issues. Despite various critiques of the impact of cross-strait agreements, many European parliamentarians continued to praise the cross-strait development, as did the European media.
Even in June last year, a few weeks after the occupation of the Legislative Yuan’s main chamber, European External Action Service praised dynamic cross-strait relations.
It was clear during the trip of two of the principal leaders of the Sunflower movement, Dennis Wei (魏揚) and Wu Cheng (吳崢), and I to London and Brussels in November last year that the attitude had changed. We experienced a genuine interest in understanding what has happened in Taiwan, in the same way people wanted to understand the reasons behind the burst financial bubble.
However, it was also clear that some would like go back to business as usual, as we have observed in the financial sector.
To avoid the creation of political bubbles, politicians and journalists need to expose themselves to broader spectra of knowledge by, for instance, listening to opposition parties and civil societies in Europe and Taiwan. Knowledge is important, but it can mislead if a nuanced view is not taken.
It would be convenient to create a new cross-strait bubble based on selected information and try to neglect the new reality.
Fortunately, this is not possible because Taiwan has changed, and the political scene and debates are more vibrant than ever. In the new reality, Taiwan will continue to be peaceful and constructive in the way it engages with China and the rest of the international community. It will focus on making Taiwan an even better place.
The cross-strait bubble failed to create sustainable development between Taiwan and China. Sustainable development is only possible when policies protect the interest of Taiwanese. Consequently, the next bubble to burst is the “one China” policy.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS