The ouster and exile by the military of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya on Sunday created several problems for Taiwan, the least of which is the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration’s last-minute decision to cancel his trip there later this week.
With the international community — from the UN to the Organization of American States — condemning the coup, Taipei faces uncertainty in its relations with one of its remaining 23 diplomatic allies. Despite Ma’s assurances yesterday that ties between the two countries had not been affected — in other words, that Tegucigalpa would not switch recognition to Beijing — there is no knowing what will happen next in the unstable mood of a coup d’etat.
By virtue of their unconstitutionality, military coups abandon all pretence to legal strictures, and their architects may be amenable to other, sudden changes. Strategic alliances — especially with undemocratic states — can be formed, especially if the coup results in diplomatic isolation, which cannot be ruled out in this case.
But Honduras is not a very attractive prize for China. It has very little to offer in terms of natural resources — one of Beijing’s major considerations in developing ties with countries.
Furthermore, Beijing and Taipei have struck a sort of truce in that they will not attempt to steal each other’s allies; doing so now could threaten cross-strait rapprochement, which is far more valuable to Beijing than poor Honduras. But as the Chinese Foreign Ministry has yet to make a statement on the developments, the jury is still out.
The problem of dealing with an illegitimate regime presents another challenge. If Zelaya — who in September 2007 “angered” Beijing by calling Taiwan an independent sovereign state — is not allowed to return from exile, will Taipei risk angering Tegucigalpa in placing pressure on it to restore democracy, or will it allow fear of losing a diplomatic ally to mute its response to what should be condemned in no uncertain terms?
As a beacon of democracy — an image that, at least in name, Ma has encouraged — Taiwan can hardly afford to remain silent when democracy is shoved aside by an act that even by Central American standards has become rare in recent years. So far, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Presidential Office have said little other than to confirm Ma’s change of itinerary and that they are monitoring the situation.
While the dust settles, Taipei will have to choose between the cold interests of diplomatic relations and its core values; between muting its criticism of Acting President Roberto Micheletti and the forces that installed him or joining the US and several other countries in calling for Zelaya to be reinstated.
The decision will mostly hinge on these two poles. Despite a free-trade agreement between Taiwan and Honduras that came into force a year ago, bilateral trade between the two countries is hardly substantial — US$66 million in 2007, according to the Ministry of Finance’s Directorate General of Customs.
At a time when Taiwan watchers fret about the state of Taiwan’s democracy, Taipei should not shirk its responsibilities as a member of the community of democracies. Taiwan must join the chorus of Tegucigalpa critics — even if this risks endangering diplomatic relations.
Otherwise, Taipei will be no better than Beijing in this respect: remaining aloof from the political decay within allies, however undemocratic and repressive their governments may be.
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