In an apparent bid to pressure the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government into recognizing the so-called “1992 consensus,” China has stepped up efforts to compress Taiwan’s international breathing space.
From the WHO’s World Health Assembly (WHA) meeting in May, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Committee on Fisheries in Italy in July, the International Civil Aviation Organization assembly in Canada this week and Interpol’s planned annual summit in Indonesia next month, Taiwan has either had its status belittled, not been invited, or has seen reporters forced to leave venues, reportedly due to Chinese pressure.
In view of these setbacks, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has vowed to continue the nation’s efforts to seek participation in international events, despite China’s incessant obstruction.
“We will fight Chinese oppression and develop our relationships with other nations,” she said on Thursday last week in an open letter marking the DPP’s 30th anniversary.
“Our every effort will leave a legacy and will make Taiwan’s determination and its people more visible in the international community,” she pledged in a speech on Saturday last week at a seminar on the 20th anniversary of the nation’s first direct presidential election. “These kinds of challenges and difficulties are expected to continue, but Taiwan’s efforts will also endure.”
Meanwhile, on the legislative floor yesterday, Premier Lin Chuan (林全) said that “if our participation in international organizations depends on China’s ‘charity,’ [Taiwan’s international presence] is an illusion.”
While the words are encouraging, Tsai and government officials should remember that when they are not followed by concrete actions, they are just words.
Considering the government’s handling of foreign affairs, some cannot help but wonder whether Tsai is becoming a typical politician: good at giving rousing talks, but never taking action.
For example, one only has to consider the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ plan to close several embassies and overseas missions. What is the government thinking? At a time when Taiwan needs every chance it can to boost its global presence in the face of China’s obstructionism, Taipei’s actions directly and indirectly reduce its presence.
The Tsai administration said the plan was about limited government resources, not reducing diplomatic operations, but the fact that it has not announced diplomatic operations to fight Beijing’s tactics essentially means that the government is disarming itself diplomatically while diminishing its visibility.
With many recalling how the government wasted a chance on the international front when Minster of Health and Welfare Lin Tzou-yien (林奏延) failed to assert the nation’s dignity — using “Chinese Taipei” rather than “Taiwan” at the WHA meeting in May — and the government not pursuing UN membership this year, there is little confidence that the administration will make a breakthrough in the face of Beijing’s diplomatic blockade.
China is certainly behind the diplomatic dilemma the nation faces and Taiwanese should be indignant that most in the international community are seemingly unwilling to stand up to its bullying.
However, the government is not without blame, as it seems to be silently accepting continued injustice.
With Tsai time and again failing to turn her words into action, it shows nothing but risks degenerating into farce. It is only a matter of time before Taiwanese move from seeing the president’s rousing words as motivational to calling them repulsive and hypocritical.
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath