The government’s undertaking to block World Uyghur Congress president Rebiya Kadeer from entering the country — if, as promised, she applies for a visa — should hardly come as a surprise. What is notable about Minister of the Interior Jiang Yi-huah’s (江宜樺) declaration in the legislature yesterday is the speed with which the government has drawn its line in the sand: It will not be portrayed as provoking Beijing, and certainly not a week out from China’s National Day.
The government is well within its legal rights to deny Kadeer entry, however obsequious its motivation. Regardless of the merits of the applicant, few governments would deny other governments’ fundamental right to call the shots at ports of call. For his part, Jiang may cite the national interest and the public interest until he is blue in the face, but he can be comfortable in the knowledge that this is unnecessary; in most democratic states the distinction between these interests and the interests of the government of the day is blurred.
The recent granting of a visa to the Dalai Lama, a similarly controversial figure for Beijing, was likely forced by a combination of the Dalai Lama’s stated wish to comfort victims of Typhoon Morakot and the government’s embarrassment over its appalling response to the storm, as well as the general respect with which the Dalai Lama is held in this theologically eclectic society.
Kadeer, a Muslim but not a religious figure, can claim no such sympathy or camaraderie among Taiwanese, despite the worthiness of her cause. The government’s refusal to allow her into the country will thus suffer little backlash — even among grassroots supporters of the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), many of whom have much more pressing issues with which to concern themselves.
Turning its back on Kadeer, however, places the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government in an interesting, and possibly theoretically vexing, position. The challenge for the DPP is to make hay out of this issue in a way that does not bore the public or distract it from the core of the problem.
This is the problem: When Jiang unctuously associated Kadeer with terrorist activity in Xinjiang, he effectively invited sober observers to ask what policy the KMT has on Chinese affairs other than reaping the immediate benefits of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA).
We have observed previously that the KMT’s ideology has hollowed out so dramatically that even its chairman and top party official on “mainland” affairs have demonstrated that they have absolutely no idea — or interest in — what is going on in China in terms of political dissidence and instability, let alone intellectual and ideological debate.
The KMT, once a party with a grand vision, if poorly realized, is now a party with no vision other than denying Taiwan self-determination.
But the government’s speed in dumping Kadeer and the cause of mistreated Uighurs in general in the too-hard basket drags out a paradox that DPP thinkers must exploit: By refusing to engage crucial issues and closing its eyes to the mounting difficulties facing China — whether or not minorities are involved — the KMT buys into the Chinese Communist Party’s bankrupt approach to governance, thus rendering itself irrelevant to the solving of China’s problems and its complex process of transformation.
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS