Former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) met Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) at the APEC leaders’ summit in Lima on Friday. APEC is one of a handful of international bodies of which Taiwan is an official member and this was the first time such senior Taiwanese and Chinese leaders met at one of its summits. The meeting was symbolic for both sides, but nothing more than that.
Although the meeting was an indication of reduced cross-strait tension, Taiwan should not rush to celebrate. In no way does it mean that China is willing to recognize Taiwan’s sovereignty, or that Taiwan can now deal with China on an equal footing internationally. Beijing’s leadership saw the meeting as one between friends that had nothing to do with Taiwan’s international status.
China’s treatment of the Lien-Hu meeting was molded by political considerations. Although the meeting took place at the APEC summit, the arrangements differed from the bilateral meetings between leaders of other APEC members. Xinhua news agency, for example, never once mentioned Hu’s status as Chinese president, referring to him instead as Chinese Communist Party general secretary, while Lien was called honorary chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), thereby avoiding portraying the meeting as one between China’s president and the representative of Taiwan’s top leader. China’s foreign minister did not accompany Hu for the Lien meeting. Instead, Wang Yi (王毅), head of the Taiwan Affairs Office, was flown over, to emphasize that it was a party-to-party, not a state-to-state meeting.
Both Lien and Hu described the meeting as one between old friends. Speaking of Hu in flattering terms, Lien scarcely mentioned the things Taiwanese really want from China — peace, equality, dignity and prosperity. Nothing important was discussed and the meeting served no practical purpose.
Although US President George W. Bush is a lame duck leader, he is still the head of a great power. Diplomacy therefore required that he hold a bilateral meeting with Hu. The two did not depart from the standpoints they have held at past meetings. Hu reminded Bush that the Taiwan question is a vital matter for Beijing and remains the most important and sensitive aspect of China-US relations. He also stressed that his government would never depart from its “one China” stance. Bush reiterated that the US maintains a “one China” policy guided by the Taiwan Relations Act and the three US-China joint declarations. He also urged China to talk to the Dalai Lama, and once more expressed his commitment to religious freedom. Although there are many issues on which Bush and Hu do not formally agree, at least they are willing to exchange views and expound their positions on an equal footing.
No great practical results were to be expected from Hu’s meetings with either Lien or Bush, but his meeting with Bush was a dialog between equals, while that with Lien was an exercise in control through conciliation. Although the Lima summit was the first at which Taiwan has been represented by such a senior figure as a former vice president, and although he managed to meet the Chinese president, this shows only that China is taking a more flexible approach in its dealings with Taiwan. It does not signify any change in Beijing’s “one China” policy. Taiwan should not allow the APEC meeting to lull it into a false sense of security.
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS