The opposition alliance has relentlessly criticized A-Bian's (阿扁) handling of the economy over the past year, and it blames the nation's woes on his refusal to lift restrictions on cross-strait trade and investment. Many opposition politicians believe that direct links will miraculously solve all of Taiwan's economic problems, and if the country has to knuckle under to Beijing on the "one China" issue to make this happen, so be it. They are not the only ones who feel this way; there is growing public support for at least giving it a try. This puts A-Bian in a rather tricky spot.
For the easing of restrictions on this side of the strait to have any noticeable effect, Beijing has to reciprocate. Of course, before that happens A-Bian is going to have to kowtow before the altar of "one China." Many DPP supporters, however, are pro-independence, so if A-bien accepts "one China," even the watered-down 1992 version, he may end up facing a revolt in his own ranks. Given that the year-end elections are going to be a tight race, the DPP cannot really afford to alienate any of its hardcore supporters. Furthermore, if A-Bian goes ahead, there is no guarantee his gamble will pay off in terms of an economic upturn before the elections. If this turns out to be the case, he will have alienated many of his own supporters for nothing.
It appears, however, that A-bian has found a way out of this dilemma. First, he knows that eventually he will have to lift restrictions on cross-strait trade and investment, which means making certain concessions on "one China." But, at the same time, he must avoid looking like a traitor to his party. Second, he needs to ensure that if Beijing rebuffs him, or if the expected economic benefits do not materialize, he will not have to shoulder the blame alone. To accomplish the former, he will have to make it appear as if he was forced to recognize "one China," while the latter requires that he involve prominent business figures and opposition politicians in the decision-making process. This is where the Eco-nomic Development Advisory Conference comes in.
A-bien has promised to comply with whatever decisions the conference makes, but he already knows what those recommendations will be. In essence, he has committed himself to recognizing the 1992 consensus on "one China," opening up direct links and lifting restrictions on investment. By "humbly" pledging compliance with the group's decisions in advance, however, he has cleverly shifted responsibility for these drastic changes on to the conference. This may not be enough to appease the hardcore independence activists in the DPP, but it will be enough to mute much of the criticism from his supporters when he eventually accepts some version of "one China."
Furthermore, by inviting multi-party participation in the conference, A-Bian has forced the opposition parties to put up or shut up. Before the formation of the conference, it looked as if issues surrounding cross-strait relations, trade and investment would play a decisive role in the upcoming elections. Now, however, A-Bian has brilliantly stolen the opposition's thunder. Their participation in drawing up the conference's recommendations means that they will no longer be able to attack the president for his stance on cross-strait relations and the economy, and if the group's advice fails to halt the economic slowdown, they will also share the blame.
Furthermore, since the government's future cross-strait and economic policies will be based on this supra-party consensus, the focus in the elections will likely swing back to domestic issues like "black gold" politics and the environment. The DPP has a clear advantage over the opposition in these areas, so a focus on domestic issues should help the DPP in the elections.
Colin Green is a visiting researcher at the Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS