Disappointment was the inevitable result for anyone misguided enough to have high expectations of the meeting between former premier Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) and China's Vice Premier China Qian Qichen (錢其琛) in Beijing on Friday. Despite the political weight of both Siew and Qian, their talks went nowhere.
To begin with, the state-run media referred to Siew and Qian by the offices they hold in their respective parties, and avoided any mention of their former and current official capacities. The intention was obviously to downplay any formal political significance of their meeting.
Siew dutifully raised many important issues during their talks. However, Qian cunningly dodged the bullets one by one. When Siew suggested a resumption of the cross-strait dialogue between Koo Chen-fu (
Siew's enthusiasm toward the "common market" concept also appeared one-sided. To start with, the mainland Chinese media made no mention of the "common market" concept in their coverage of Siew's visit. To make matters worse, Qian simply emphasized the importance of cross-strait financial and economic exchanges, without making any substantive response to the common market proposal. When Siew further pressed Qian on the issue, Qian vaguely said he felt that it would be a "good beginning."
Qian's answer reveals perhaps the greatest difference between the attitudes of China and Taiwan toward a cross-strait common market. For some people in Taiwan, the cross-strait common market scenario may be the lesser of the two evils, an alternative to unification with China. What they have in mind is a cross-strait relationship modeled after the EU.
In contrast, for China the concept of a common market is completely unacceptable if it is to replace unification. However, if it is simply the "beginning" of a chain of events leading toward full unification, there is a remote chance China just might give the idea a second chance. However, that would mean the two sides have essentially two completely different goals in mind, and still no real agreement about the future of cross-strait relations. What would that accomplish for Taiwan? The two sides would be back to point zero, which is where they are right now.
A cross-strait common market has many preconditions, such as both China's and Taiwan's WTO entry, the lifting of the ban on the "three direct links" and the easing of the "no haste, be patient" policy. At this point, both sides are still being kept out of the WTO, because China has not finished entry negotiations, and Taiwan is "forbidden" to enter before China. In addition, no consensus has even been reached in Taiwan regarding the lifting of the the ban on the "three direct links," and the "no haste, be patient" policy.
When Qian brought up the issue of "three direct links," Siew was speechless. No wonder Qian quickly became disinterested in Siew's talks.
No less significant than Qian's distant attitude was Wang's "incidental" absence from Shanghai during Siew's visit to the city. The message seems to be that China simply isn't about to resume dialogue with Taiwan, irrespective of whether the negotiator is Koo or Siew.
In view of China's uncooperative attitude, it was a gross understatement when Siew commented yesterday that the development of cross-strait relations is comparable to climbing the Great Wall. The task is more akin to climbing the Himalayas.
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
RSS