News outlets and social media users have been debating whether President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration should be held accountable for the plunge in the number of Chinese tourists visiting the nation and the dismal prospects of local tourism businesses that target those visitors.
The debates climaxed on Monday when a large “self-help” protest was staged by reportedly hundreds of thousands of people who work in the tourism sector on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei in front of the Presidential Office Building, in an apparent attempt to pressure Tsai to tackle the thorny issue head-on and improve relations with Beijing.
Some hotel proprietors, owners of travel agencies and tour bus owners have blamed their dwindling businesses on Tsai’s continued reluctance to acknowledge the so-called “1992 consensus.”
They said that is exactly what has irritated Beijing and prompted it to resort to strategies such as cutting the number of Chinese allowed to visit Taiwan to coerce Tsai into accepting its “one China” framework.
The “1992 consensus” — a term former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) admitted making up in 2000 — refers to a tacit understanding between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese government that both sides acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means.
If the political factors in the issue are put aside, should the business owners not also be held responsible for their predicament?
Some, if not all, chose to ignore warnings about “not putting all their eggs in one basket” when they rushed to capitalize on the surge in the number of Chinese tourists visiting Taiwan during former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration.
That their businesses might go bankrupt simply because of the number of Chinese tourists arriving in Taiwan has halved signals the need for the tourism industry to transition and transform, rather than wait for government intervention, as it suggests that their services are too tailor-made for Chinese tourists to attract local tourists or those from other nations.
Even if the political aspect is considered, the Chinese government should shoulder the largest share of the blame as it has deliberately turned a blind eye to the gestures of goodwill Tsai has demonstrated since taking office in May and stubbornly clung to a political framework — the “1992 consensus” or the “one China” principle — that does not have the support of the mainstream Taiwanese public opinion.
Despite pressure from independence advocates, Tsai has chosen to take the middle ground and expressed respect for the “historical facts” of the 1992 cross-strait talks, a move that upset many people championing Taiwanese independence.
It is a no-brainer that her acknowledgement of the “1992 consensus” would be tantamount to an acceptance of the “one China” principle, which is generally interpreted by the international community as the People’s Republic of China being the sole legitimate government of both China and Taiwan.
For now, Beijing is merely pushing for Tsai’s acceptance of the “1992 consensus,” but who is to say that should she comply there would not be other demands in store, such as political negotiations or cross-strait talks about unification.
It would be wise for the Tsai administration to stand firm and do no more than provide the necessary assistance to the struggling tourism industry, because if she gives Beijing an inch, it would take a mile.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under