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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS