From afar, a forest is all calm and quiet; penetrate its heart, however, and soon the placidity reveals itself as illusory, as nature perpetuates itself ruthlessly.
When it comes to political conflict, so-called experts and many government officials often look at it as they do a forest — from the outside, unawares of all the pressures, rifts and dynamics that animate it. Economists and investors, whose trade thrives on stability, are often also guilty of adopting an outsider’s view that blinds them to realities on the ground.
This usually engenders two problems: Self-deception, as experts do not have all the necessary variables to draw a complete picture of the situation; and intellectual dishonesty, whereby inconvenient variables are ignored so that the coveted end-result can be achieved with as little friction as possible.
Such a situation is taking place in Taiwan these days, where it seems that the entire international community is of one mind regarding the benefits of rapprochement between Taiwan and China and of the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) between the two countries. The same song has been repeated by academics, economists, consul-generals, trade council chairmen — all of whom have one thing in common: They do not live in Taiwan and get their information about the place through a number of filters.
So far, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has succeeded in fostering an image — at least abroad — of unity on his pro-China policies, an image that diplomats in places as close as Hong Kong, or who were wined and dined by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials on official visits to Taipai, appear to have swallowed. Ma promises stability and peace in the Taiwan Strait, slogans that have been received abroad well.
Like the proverbial forest, however, there are tensions — and they are rising. The ruling on whether the administration will allow an opposition-initiated referendum on an ECFA to proceed will also determine the manner in which these tensions manifest themselves. If the referendum bid is turned down, like the one initiated by the Democratic Progressive Party earlier this year was, inhibitions for social unrest will also likely disappear.
This holds especially true for the many single-interest groups, such as pro-independence organizations and the many sectors that feel threatened by an ECFA. Without proper democratic outlets to express their grievances, and absent sincere government measures to palliate political and economic apprehensions (Ma has offered too little, both in terms of financial compensation and assurances on sovereignty), the next steps cannot but become more radical.
Already there are signs that this is happening. Last week, this newspaper learned from a source that must remain anonymous that protests on Friday night in downtown Taipei were on the brink of escalating, with tactics that could have resulted in damage to property, if not injury. Though this did not come to pass in that specific instance, the potential for escalation is real, and if the Ma administration continues to neglect rising public apprehensions, the restraint that gainsaid more radical elements on Friday could quickly dissipate.
No one — regional economies, global markets and least of all Taiwanese — stands to gain from unrest and instability. However, if a group of people feels boxed in and their fears are ignored by all, they may come to see unrest as the only option. If this happens, all the stability that experts, diplomats and economists are so enamored of would be threatened.
Rather than allow this to transpire, would it not be better if they ensured that a people’s fears and grievances are properly addressed?
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS