A Scottish perspective
In April 2017, I went to Scotland for my honeymoon. While paying for some purchases at a Superdry clothing store in Edinburgh, I handed my Republic of China passport to a male shop assistant to obtain a duty free receipt.
He asked me: “Are you Taiwanese?” After I said yes, the assistant, who said he was from Glasgow, proceeded to provide a self-assured analysis of cross-strait relations:
“Taiwan and China are not the same country. Although China claims Taiwan as part of its sovereign territory, Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation,” he said.
Just like the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK, in his eyes, Scotland and the UK are not the same country.
He said: “Although England says that Scotland is a part of the UK, eventually Scotland will become a genuinely independent country through another independence referendum. China wants to trap Taiwan in a straitjacket by using the “one China” principle — come on, give me a break.”
After I finished listening, I could not help but gasp in admiration at this young Scottish man’s understanding of the cross-strait relationship. Not only did he understand that Taiwan is its own country, he also knew that Taiwanese must grudgingly submit to China’s “one China” principle framework.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has clearly misunderstood the voting intentions of the Taiwanese public in the Nov. 24 local elections. It was a repudiation of President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) and the Cabinet’s performance in government to date, not an endorsement of the so-called “1992 consensus” — even less so an acknowledgment of “one China” (which abroad is universally recognized to mean the People’s Republic of China).
Beijing needs to understand that voters in the local elections were registering their concerns about the economy, not voting on cross-strait politics.
All Taiwanese recognize two things: first, the virtue of democratic government and, second, that Taiwan is not the same country as China. Xi should give up trying to peddle the “one China” principle to Taiwan. After all, it has been tried in Hong Kong with “one country, two systems” — and has been an unmitigated failure.
The Tsai administration would do well to study the 2014 Scottish independence referendum held under then-British prime minister David Cameron.
Shih Yu-hsuan
Changhua County
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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