It has proven difficult for the people of this country to reach a consensus on the advantages and disadvantages of activity across the Taiwan Strait. In a pluralist society, any absolute approval or disapproval will find itself open to criticism.
But Beijing is undoubtedly in a position to lead cross-strait economic activity today. It can, and does, encourage Taiwanese companies and business leaders to relocate to China not only in the interest of economic development but also strategy.
It is for this reason that this country must take national security -- rather than simply the interests of local companies -- into account in cross-strait activity.
China has gradually become more practical and flexible in its handling of Taiwan affairs for the sake of greater political stability and economic prosperity. Taipei should take this shift seriously and come up with measures to counter the vulnerability that result from this flexibility.
Taipei's cautiousness suggests that it has surely realized that Beijing's policy of enticing Taiwanese over to China is already a critical threat to the nation's survival and development. Perhaps the government can now highlight the China threat in a comprehensive and thorough manner, and make clear its own bottom line, so that the public is made fully aware of the risks cross-strait activity involves. This will definitely help this nation reach a strong consensus.
Consider the charter flights to Shanghai during the Lunar New Year holiday. The two sides of the Strait reached an accommodation in which they were no longer entirely opposed to the idea of such flights.
Rather than focus on specific dangers of this linkage, Taiwan itself split into two camps, allowing China to play both ends against the middle.
In response, the government should have made the whole picture clear to the public. Obviously, in the case of the charter flights, the government was under pressure not only from China but also from people who wanted a cheaper and faster family reunion for the holiday and those pushing for direct links.
Beijing has gradually increased its promotion of unification while Taipei has loosened regulations when it comes to certain parts of cross-strait exchange, namely direct links.
Thus, Beijing has constantly pushed ahead while Taipei has given in. In this light, the temporary advantages and disadvantages of the situation become quite apparent.
Beijing will continue to keep the ball in its court, defeating Taipei one point at a time, keeping the pressure on.
The problem is, where exactly is the limit of this pressure? What is the government's bottom line? When will China cross this bottom line, causing a rupture that leads to "game over" for Taiwan?
Will the steady pressure get out of control, causing the nation to abandon itself, or even the international community to abandon its promise to maintain peace and security across the Strait?
The nation's leaders must face this pressure and draw out the whole picture for all to see -- the public, the international community and the Chinese oligarchy and the people over whom they tyrannically rule.
I believe that there is no reason for a frank, sincere government to be blindsided or oppressed, if it's willing to communicate in a rational, humble and practical way.
Yan Jiann-fa is an associate professor in the department of business administration at Ching Yun Institute of Technology.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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