Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) and other Taipei officials should decline to attend next year’s Taipei-Shanghai Forum, which is to be hosted by Shanghai, given what transpired at this year’s meeting in Taipei.
The actual conference on Tuesday was so embarrassing for Taipei that it could only be described as a debacle.
The announcement made almost two weeks ago that the forum would be held for a sixth year, after weeks of uncertainty, made Ko look good in the media. With all official cross-strait ties suspended in the wake of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) inauguration in May, people had begun speculating whether Ko could be the answer to the stalemate in cross-strait exchanges.
Unfortunately, any hope that the majority of Taiwanese who resist the so-called “1992 consensus” and unification with China had for Ko evaporated shortly after the forum began, when Shanghai Municipal Committee United Front Work Department Director Sha Hailin (沙海林) — the most senior member of the Chinese delegation — began talking about the “consensus.”
Sha’s comments were largely unexpected, given that Taipei Deputy Mayor Teng Chia-chi (鄧家基) had just days before told reporters that it was unlikely that Sha would attempt to push China’s political views.
Wrong. Sha made an all-out effort to do just that.
Sha’s speech was filled with rhetoric propagandizing unification, such as the “consensus” being the bedrock for cross-strait exchanges and the cliches that both sides of the Taiwan Strait are brothers of blood thicker than water and that the Zhonghua minzu (中華民族, “Chinese ethnic group”) should thrive together to achieve prosperity.
Beijing’s intention to impress and entice Taiwanese with China’s robust economy was manifest in Sha’s speech, especially when he boasted about the number of jobs being created annually by the Shanghai Municipal Government and the number of Taiwanese entrepreneurs who have established businesses in Shanghai.
One must give Sha credit: The head of Shanghai’s United Front Work Department excels at his craft.
However, for people who hope to maintain the “status quo” across the Strait and those who support Taiwanese independence, Sha’s speech was excruciating.
One would have thought that Ko — who famously said that former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) endorsement of the “consensus” during his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore last year suggested that Ma had suffered “brain damage” — would offer a strong counterargument to Sha’s blatant interference, as he had promised.
However, when asked to comment on Sha’s speech, all Ko did was equivocate and shun questions, repeating his hollow words about promoting “respect” and “understanding” between Taiwan and China like a broken record.
However, while Ko is undoubtedly disappointed many with his actions and words at the forum, perhaps he does not deserve to bear the brunt of the public’s frustration.
If all that the forum is good for is to offer China yet another platform to impose its “one China” framework on Taiwan, why should Taipei continue to participate?
China, as tiny-minded as always, had been craving an opportunity to teach Tsai — and all those who dared to challenge it by refusing to acknowledge the “consensus” — a lesson, and the forum provided the perfect opportunity.
The impasse in cross-strait dialogue should be resolved by leaders on both sides of the Taiwan Strait demonstrating wisdom and sincerity, rather than by local government leaders, who should never have been put in a position to deal with matters beyond their purview.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past