More must be done to stop politicians, both current and former, from traveling to China.
Discussions about this have often centered on the capacity in which politicians are making the visit and the level of access to confidential information they have.
It has also been suggested, such as when former President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) last year was barred from traveling to Hong Kong to make a speech on cross-strait issues, that travel to China is the democratic right of all Taiwanese.
This argument fails to take into account the special nature of a politician’s role in society and the unique nature of the cross-strait relationship.
Nowhere else in the world are there two nations that engage in such extensive exchanges, economic or otherwise, while remaining locked in a perpetual state of ideological conflict. More so than in any other nation, Taiwanese politicians have a special responsibility to protect the interests of the public who elected them into their positions and who pay their wages.
China has been unwavering in its ideological offensive, demanding agreements from Taiwanese universities to avoid discussing independence, pilfering diplomatic allies, arresting Taiwanese on trumped-up charges and blocking the nation’s participation in various international organizations.
China says it would continue this offensive until President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) acknowledges the so-called “1992 consensus” and its “one China” principle.
These are unilaterally imposed concepts that Tsai and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have never acknowledged and that the majority of the public want nothing to do with.
Politicians such as outgoing Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) and others in her party seem to be under the illusion that they are helping by maintaining cordial relations with the Chinese Communist Party.
Even some DPP officials seem to be of this mindset, with Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) in 2014 saying that if he were elected head of the party, he would travel to China if necessary. Hsieh even seemed to think of this as a personal sacrifice, saying at the time that even though it might harm his reputation if he were to visit China, it would be “selfish” not to do so if it would be to Taiwan’s benefit.
How could visits to China by Taiwanese politicians benefit Taiwanese?
Opinion polls going back several years have always shown that Taiwanese want to maintain the “status quo” in cross-strait relations, something China has increasingly shown it is growing impatient with.
Taiwanese are also becoming impatient with the state of the nation’s identity, with a poll last week by Taiwan Brain Trust think tank showing that nearly 90 percent of the public wants “normalization” of its political status internationally.
Normalization would mean that countries worldwide would recognize Taiwan as an independent, sovereign nation and if this cannot be accomplished under a “status quo” in cross-strait relations — it likely cannot — 54 percent of the respondents supported “independence,” basically rewriting the Constitution to rename the nation and abandon the Republic of China framework.
So if this is the direction in which most people want to move, why are politicians visiting China and meeting with Chinese officials?
Some officials seem to be ignoring the wishes of Taiwanese outright. Overseas Community Affairs Council officials visited China last month for talks on unification.
Such visits can only benefit the politicians involved.
If politicians act against the wishes of the public in favor of their own interests — a public whose interests they vowed to support when they took up their positions — should they not cease to receive money from taxpayers?
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers