The Lunar New Year cross-strait chartered flights broke a 56-year-old political deadlock, offering for the first time direct flights that are two-way, mutual and non-stop. This shows that the national security concerns and political obstacles that stood in the way of such flights no longer are insurmountable. The biggest remaining obstacle for direct flights now probably exists only in the minds of the leaders in Taipei and Beijing.
Many people hope that these chartered flights will be the first of many attempts to break the ice, but given political realities this is by no means certain.
The cross-strait political deadlock, including everything from "one China" to the "anti-secession" legislation, will be very difficult to break through. However, Jia Qinglin's (賈慶林) speech on the anniversary of Jiang Zemin's (江澤民) "Eight Points," where he said that acknowledging the "1992 consensus" is one of the conditions that must be met in order to revive cross-strait talks, implies one possible way to break through the decade-long deadlock.
If Premier Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) talk about the constitutional "one China" framework can be made part of the next Cabinet's policies, there is definite hope for peaceful dialogue.
The natural question following the realization of cross-strait flights is "What's next?" Are the flights a harbinger of direct flights, dialogue, exchanges and reconciliation, or are they just the calm before the storm that will follow the anti-secession legislation and a new constitution for Taiwan in 2008? The coverage on the flights in the international media contains much food for thought for both China's and Taiwan's leaders.
If China wants to effectively follow up on its talk of pinning its hope on the people of Taiwan, there is no way that they will be able to do so by passing anti-secession legislation. Such a law will only serve to alienate the people of Taiwan from Beijing and legitimize the desinicization that already is taking place in Taiwan.
It is said that the weaker must use intelligence when dealing with the stronger, and some of the more radical suggestions in Taiwan for expanding local opposition, such as enacting anti-annexation legislation and holding a referendum, are not in Taiwan's best interests.
Taiwan for its part should consider the following issues.
First, the government should review the charter flights and consider whether national interests have been protected, whether Taiwan's sovereignty and dignity have been respected, whether cross-strait tensions have been reduced and whether its people's interests have been guaranteed.
If these questions are answered in the affirmative, ways should be found to expand such flights and increase cross-strait exchanges in order to bring the people out of the shadow of war.
Second, we should discuss whether a democratic government exists to manage or to serve the public. The small details which show the government's "management" mindset, such as the fact that Taiwanese students were not allowed to travel on the flights and the government's use of the flights as an opportunity to punish those engaged in matters it does not encourage. Looking at the bigger issues, we are given to wonder how many businesspeople have wasted time and money on endless flight transfers every year? Isn't this something to which a government serving the people should try to find a solution?
Third, although the government and opposition here are fighting to claim credit for the charters, the view of the international community is that it is President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) achievement.
Chen should understand that he is responsible for the success or failure of anything that occurrs during his presidency. The question of how to use the opposition as leverage and give the Cabinet the authority it needs to break through the cross-strait deadlock will determine his legacy. He should rise above party politics and power struggles.
As depicted in the Democratic Progressive Party's flag, Taiwan stands at a historical crossroads. Chen will have to decide whether the next three years will be a continuation of the previous five years' calls for the public to protect Taiwan, opposition to China and continued deadlock, or if he will create a historical reconciliation between government and opposition. It's all a matter of making the right decision.
Emile Sheng is an assistant professor in the department of political science at Soochow University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
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.
RSS