The Presidential Office announced with much fanfare on Wednesday that former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) would represent President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) at the APEC leaders summit in Peru next month.
The trumpets were out because, as a former vice president, Lien will be the highest-ranking former official to represent Taiwan at the annual forum.
Ma told the Central News Agency in an interview last week that he would do “whatever he could” to raise the level of Taiwan’s representation at APEC. Lien’s acceptance by China will no doubt be touted by the Presidential Office as another success in its policy of engaging Beijing.
Back in October 2001, when former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) chose former vice president Li Yuan-zu (李元簇), Li was flatly rejected by China on the grounds that his appointment bucked APEC protocol: Taiwan’s representative had to be a finance or economic official.
China seems to have moved the goalposts on this occasion, as Lien hardly qualifies as an economic expert, but the government and pro-unification press will no doubt sweep this inconvenience under the carpet.
In selecting Lien, the Presidential Office clearly resorted to the safest option, as there was little chance that China would reject him given his Machiavellian past.
Lien is China’s man. He has shown on many occasions in the past that he is all too willing to toe the line of Beijing’s united-front policy and denigrate Taiwan’s sovereignty. It was Lien who put Taiwan’s sovereignty on its current slippery slope when in 2005 he undermined the authority of the Chen government by traveling to China and meeting Chinese officials.
Another inconvenient fact for the Presidential Office is that Lien is not a government official and will attend the summit in his capacity of chairman of the National Policy Foundation, a KMT-affiliated think tank.
What this means is that China has ensured that the cross-strait relationship remains on a strictly party-to-party basis in line with Beijing’s “one China” policy and nullifies Ma’s claim that he is raising the level of Taiwan’s representation.
One could even suggest that Lien was perhaps Beijing’s — and not Taipei’s — choice. Given the shady communication channels that exist between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party, it would not be surprising if the two parties reached a secret deal on Taipei’s representation.
In the few months since the Ma government began its policy of rapprochement with China, it has become increasingly adept at grasping straws when it comes to identifying Beijing’s acts of “goodwill.”
Lien’s attendance in Lima will no doubt be spun as the latest indicator of China’s benevolence, but in reality most people couldn’t care less who represents Ma at this inconsequential annual gabfest.
They care more about Taiwan’s entry to the WHO or the UN, goals that look like a lost cause following China’s outright dismissal of Ma’s “pragmatic” UN bid last month.
The Ma administration may have perfected the art of taking China’s snubs and spinning them in a positive fashion, but as last Saturday’s 600,000-strong anti-government protest showed, people’s reserves of goodwill for Ma and his cross-strait strategy are at a critical low.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS