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?
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.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US