Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) is scheduled to arrive in Taipei today for talks. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) says that the four agreements due to be signed at Chen’s meeting with Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) are necessary for Taiwan, and he has sought to dispel fears of a sellout. He says the agreements will be enormously beneficial to Taiwan’s development.
Many people, however, do not believe Ma. Several groups plan to protest during Chen’s visit, and the list of activities includes egg throwing, sit-ins, rallies and sieges. Seven thousand police officers will be mobilized and razor-wire barriers laid down to contain the protesters. Taipei City will not be a peaceful place for the next few days.
Although the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are now reconciled and ready to sign agreements, the KMT has not achieved a consensus on cross-strait policy with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
During the 1993 SEF-ARATS meeting in Singapore, then-DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh (施明德) staged a protest outside the talks venue. Now, as then, the major political conflict affecting cross-strait relations is not between the KMT and the CCP, but between the KMT and the DPP. Eight years of DPP government did not change this fundamental dichotomy.
Where do the KMT and DPP differ? Actually, the agreements to be signed at this SEF-ARATS meeting hardly differ from proposals mooted under the DPP administration. The real difference will be in the atmosphere of the talks and the symbols related to national sovereignty. The real point of sensitivity lies in whether Taiwan’s welcome for Chen and his attitude to the government and people of Taiwan are in the spirit of mutual equality and dignity.
Pressed by reporters, Ma recently asked: “Can you give me one example of anything I have done to sell out Taiwan?”
It is true that Ma has done nothing specific to sell out the country. He has, however, referred to Taiwan as an “area” and said that Chen can call him “Mr Ma” rather than “president.” Ma defended himself by saying that the terms “Taiwan area” and “mainland area” were written into the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China in 1992. But Ma’s remark constitutes a retreat for Taiwan’s desire for sovereignty back to the situation 16 years ago, and is out of line with public opinion today. For a president to back down from recognizing his own status in his own country for fear of offending China is a worrying show of weakness.
Neither Ma nor China really understand Taiwanese public opinion or the concerns of Taiwan’s opposition parties. What Chen needs to do to make a good impression on Taiwanese does not hinge on the content of agreements. It cannot be achieved by giving Taiwan pandas, nor by shedding crocodile tears as ARATS Vice Chairman Zhang Mingqing (張銘清) did during his recent visit. The key question is whether Chen respects the feelings of Taiwanese and whether he will address Ma as “president.”
Public support for Ma and his government has fallen to less than 30 percent. Ma sees this week’s talks as a golden opportunity to regain popularity with a breakthrough in cross-strait relations. Of course the agreements themselves will bring some benefits, but China’s real attitude to Taiwan will be revealed by exactly what Chen says when he meets Ma. This will be the real test of Chen’s visit, cross-strait relations and Ma’s popularity.
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