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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95
RSS