Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) met in Beijing on Wednesday in what marked the high point of Wu’s six-day visit to China.
The two party leaders swapped niceties about earthquake relief in front of the cameras before meeting behind closed doors in a one-hour summit lauded as historic by the international press.
Putting aside media hyperbole, the meeting was not so significant in the grand scheme of things because Wu traveled to China in his capacity as party chief and was not authorized to negotiate or sign anything on behalf of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his government.
This followed Ma’s announcement early last month when, in a bid to establish his authority, he said that the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) would be the main conduit for cross-strait talks under his administration, and that party-to-party contacts established by former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) during his 2005 trip to China would take a back seat.
As the SEF delegation is due in China in just under two weeks to talk about and possibly sign a deal on charter flights and Chinese tourists, one may be forgiven for wondering what the point of Wu’s trip really was.
The simple answer is there was no point, other than to give Beijing a fresh propaganda coup and soft-soap Taiwanese and anyone else willing to pay attention into believing that China has only good intentions. Why else would Hu dangle the carrot of WHO participation as he did on Wednesday, and say things like China “cares about and respects” Taiwanese?
Wu’s hastily arranged visit was China’s way of showing Ma who’s boss.
Hu’s shrewdness is not to be underestimated, as his cross-strait machinations are far more sophisticated than the no-nonsense threats of his predecessors. He is fully aware that Ma promised many things — direct flights, Chinese tourists, enhanced international space and a peace treaty — in his election campaign, all of which were predicated on the goodwill of Beijing.
Ma’s promises handed the cross-strait initiative to China and Hu, allowing him to make concessions on items that will foster goodwill with Taiwanese — such as direct flights — while stalling on issues that involve sovereignty.
But while the KMT has been very open about the details of the fictional “1992 consensus,” Beijing — though it agreed to restart talks based on this “agreement” — has remained silent on the definition of what it believes was “agreed to” in Hong Kong 16 years ago.
There has been no mention of “one China, different interpretations” from the Chinese side and no recognition of Taiwan’s sovereignty.
But then Hu knows that in this game of shadow boxing he can afford to sit back and wait for the Ma administration to make sacrifices in its haste to meet election promises.
Ma made it clear during his inauguration speech that he is willing to compromise the sovereignty of his beloved “Republic of China” in the search for short-term and questionable economic gain.
For all of Beijing’s recent friendliness, it will be interesting to see how much Ma and Taiwan really get in return.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS