President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) recent speech on Tatan Island prompted a response from China. Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), director of China's Taiwan Affairs Office, issued a press release, expressing the hope that Taiwan would authorize representatives from its business sector to negotiate with Beijing on the issue of direct links. Chen Yunlin even named two Taiwanese business leaders as candidates. Then a number of lawmakers and media figures in Taiwan also echoed Beijing's tune.
The two business leaders named by China immediately voiced their enthusiasm for the role and called for direct links within the framework of "one China, two systems."
Against this backdrop, the following aspects of the three links issue must be kept in mind.
First, China is waging a "soft propaganda war" through Taiwanese business leaders, media and politicians. True, Chen Yunlin's press release contained no strong "one China" rhetoric. But this merely reflects increased flexibility in China's strategy, designed to accomplish direct links prior to the forthcoming 16th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party. Taiwan must under no circumstances believe China's stance on the "one China" policy is loosening.
Taiwanese businesspeople who shuttle across the Strait have become pawns in Beijing's efforts to push for unification by means of an economic siege of Taiwan. While Chen Yunlin did not personally mention "one China," the two "Taiwanese representatives" he mentioned felt no reluctance about doing so for him.
Second, it is imperative that the political significance of the direct links discussions be correctly interpreted. On the surface, Chen Yunlin's comments were a goodwill response to President Chen's Tatan speech. We must understand, however, China's urgent need to push for a commencement of direct links before the 16th National Congress.
President Chen stated three principles upon which Taiwan would negotiate through representatives from Taiwan's private sectors: Taiwan must not be dwarfed, localized or marginalized in the process. This is Taiwan's bottom line in response to China's increased flexibility, and the key point of President Chen's speech.
Third, the two sides must negotiate on an equal footing. A framework and channels for cross-strait negotiations have long existed. But China's attempts to degrade Taiwan's sovereignty and its continued boycott of Taiwan's Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF, 海基會) have rendered the channels and the framework dysfunctional. If China is sincere about establishing direct links, it must resume negotiations with the SEF out of consideration and respect for Taiwan. Why bother setting up another channel and delaying the establishment of the links in the process?
The invitation extended to representatives of Taiwan's business community and the failure to mention President Chen's "three principles" suggest deliberate attempts to blur the issues and ignore Taiwan's sovereignty. China's hope is that its "one China" policy will gradually achieve its goals. The government must never backtrack from its demand for negotiations on an equal footing.
Fourth, economic benefits must never be the sole motivation behind direct links. Direct links are about more than just economics. Leaving aside the national security issues, cross-strait links are suffused with political significance, especially given China's refusal to relinquish its "one China" principle. How to assert and protect Taiwan's sovereignty if direct links are established is an issue that Taiwan's government cannot ignore. The government must actively make strategy in accordance with President Chen's three principles. Otherwise, direct links will only fatten pro-China businesspeople at the expense of all Taiwanese.
Translated by Jackie Lin
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
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS