Although the Taiwanese government has yet to decide whether to accept China's offer of two giant pandas, Beijing has already named the pair "Tuan-tuan" (
Taiwan has been understandably hesitant over accepting the pandas. At a Council of Agriculture meeting last Friday, the majority of the experts attending believed that the pandas should not be removed from their natural habitat. The council will announce its decision on the pandas on April 3.
The problem does not lie with the pandas per se. They are adorable and hold considerable appeal to the Taiwanese public. The problem is the conditions imposed by Beijing. These pandas are also a souvenir of former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan's (
This is perfectly clear in the manner the gift is being made. By refusing to present the pandas officially to the government of Taiwan, China seems to be opting for the back door rather than the main gate. Taiwan has little option but to reject a gift given in this manner. If Taiwan accepts the gift of the pandas via an opposition party or private organization, this would set a capitulationist tone for cross-strait relations.
According to international conventions, exporting endangered species is prohibited. But from China's perspective, the matter is simple: If Taiwan is a part of China, export rules simply do not apply. Accepting the pandas would then be tantamount to telling the world that Taiwan accepts the "one China" principle.
If the pandas are nevertheless brought to Taiwan, they will certainly be given a warm welcome, with the public fighting for a glimpse of these creatures at an overcrowded zoo. But politically, the pandas' presence will be a black eye for Taiwan. This is something that the government cannot accept.
Whether the pandas take up residence in Taipei Zoo, Taichung's Takeng Zoo, or the Leofoo Village Theme Park, all are captive environments. They are not a natural habitat for pandas to live and breed in. For the pandas, moving to Taiwan would be a case of killing them with love.
China has lent its pandas to a number of US zoos as a symbol of goodwill. This led to a period of intense public interest in the animals. But now that the excitement has died down, the fees for the loan of the animals have become a burden. The New York Times recently reported that the Atlanta Zoo and three other US zoos are finding the annual US$2 million fees paid for the animals increasingly onerous. Feeding the animals their special diet is also a burden. As a result, the zoos said that they are considering returning the animals to China if they cannot reach some agreement on lowering the fees.
If the pandas are able to overcome the political obstacles that stand in their way, then the Taiwanese public will be able to enjoy the sight of these rare creatures. If not, everyone in Taiwan can still breathe a sigh of relief and wish the pandas a happy life in their natural habitat. There would be a valuable lesson to be learned from that: One does not have to possess something to be able to appreciate it.
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS