So gullible is the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) when it comes to Beijing’s “promises” that party members are probably the only ones who still believe that the angelic voice heard during the Olympic Games’ opening ceremony belonged to the pig-tailed beauty on stage. It is one thing to believe in something, but quite another to obstinately “want” to believe — which is what the KMT has been doing since it entered talks with Beijing.
As he continues to portray his Chinese counterparts in cross-strait negotiations as honest brokers, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been whittling away at the nation’s sovereignty by dropping references to its official name. His rationale for doing so is that the emotional baggage of nationalism — as used by the former Democratic Progressive Party government — took us nowhere and should be substituted for “pragmatism,” which in his view would be more acceptable to Beijing and would increase Taiwan’s chances of being allowed to participate in international organizations. Gone, therefore, are references to “Taiwan” in the country’s applications to join world bodies, or the quest for full membership at the UN. The focus is now on “meaningful” participation, however ill-defined and dangerously flexible the term.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with “pragmatism” and “meaningful” participation, and on paper this approach may reflect an understanding by the Ma administration that seeking more at this point would be in vain, given Beijing’s obstruction and the international community’s refusal to grant Taiwan access to institutions that require statehood.
The problem, however, is that while Taiwan has been giving in to Beijing’s pressure on the name and sovereignty issue, all that the other side has done is take what it can, with no promise of reciprocity in sight. What this means is that for Ma’s change of course to be successful, Beijing will have to start delivering on its promises and allow Taiwan to make a space for itself on the international stage. As Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrew Hsia (夏立言) said last week, if, as it claims, China wants to win the hearts and minds of Taiwanese, it should stop obstructing Taiwan’s bids to join organizations. The coming months will show us whether the KMT’s affair with China is a case of unrequited love or a springing relationship in which both sides gain something.
In the end, however, this is all small fry, as without permanent official membership at international institutions, whatever Beijing “gives” Taiwan can just as readily be taken away. An institutional limbo is not a position Taipei wants to finds itself in, as its participation would continue to be held hostage by the vagaries of Chinese politics.
Even more fundamental is China’s refusal to disarm, or redirect, the 1,400 missiles or so it points at Taiwan — a clear indication that in Beijing decision-making circles, hard power continues to have more traction than the “soft” power of diplomacy.
The neighborhood bully may have promised to stop cornering the weakling, but the cudgel remains within his reach and the intention to use it is undiminished. If Ma’s so-called “win-win” approach to cross-strait talks is to have any meaning for Taiwan, the missile threat must go. Otherwise, Beijing’s promises will be as illusory as the red-clad little girl who charmed the world.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has created a dilemma that could soon cause him to be hoisted with his own petard, bringing his leadership of China to an end. His threatening rhetoric over the unification of Taiwan with China, in which he has said, “we are willing to draw blood if necessary,” has placed Xi in a corner. Xi is portrayed as a strong world leader, yet he has created a scenario for himself that most likely would have an unfavorable outcome. With the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) scheduled to convene this month, Xi cannot
I was privileged to meet with many of Taiwan’s leaders and leading thinkers during a study tour visit in August. One theme I heard several times during that trip was that bad relations between the United States and China benefit Taiwan. At first thought, I empathize with the argument. After all, there is a troubling record of America’s leaders negotiating with Beijing over the heads of Taiwan’s leaders. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt returned Taiwan to China after World War II. President Richard Nixon surprised Taiwan leaders with his 1972 trip to China. President Jimmy Carter unilaterally chose to normalize
Washington’s “one China” policy has not changed and the US does not take a position on Taiwan’s sovereignty issue, a US Department of State spokesperson has said. He said that this has been the principle of US policy toward Taiwan since 1979, and the policy has remained in effect. He also said that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has privately made this clear to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅). The US’ “one China” policy and China’s “one China” principle recognize China as the “representative of China.” The two diverge on the issue of Taiwan: Beijing asserts sovereignty
I live in Taiwan because, like many foreigners, I fell in love with and chose to align my life with a Taiwanese. In an era where personal freedoms are mandatorily ceded to government decree, I am thankful to the Taiwanese government for the spousal visa, as well as the lack of demeaning bureaucratic hoops and hurdles needed to get a work permit, residency permit and healthcare. However, if I then choose to attempt citizenship, this enlightened attitude spasms to seizure, culminating in what appears to be blatant xenophobia. In contrast to Western countries, the path to citizenship mandates a protracted period