As Taiwan prepares for the elections in November, many events and issues are being politicized and turned into campaign issues. As this happens, rationality often ceases to prevail; instead, untruths and hypocrisy rule.
There are some poignant examples of this:
First is that the cross-strait service trade agreement with China and the free economic pilot zones plan are being challenged as harmful to Taiwanese businesses and even Taiwan itself. Yet it is obvious — and some opponents of these policies admit this — they would hurt some businesses, but help others, as most such agreements do, and they would also facilitate trade, which is good for the nation.
Their most obvious defect, it is charged, but which makes little sense, is that they are not transparent, and therefore harmful to Taiwan’s democracy — even though both policies have been extensively dissected, vetted, debated and criticized. They are certainly more transparent than most economic or commercial agreements and proposals negotiated elsewhere.
However, what seems most irrational about the criticisms is that Taiwan is making serious efforts to join negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, but that little is being said about that trade pact not being transparent.
The TPP’s provisions are not even known to members of the US Congress. WikiLeaks’ disclosure of some of its articles and suspicions resulting from its secrecy have caused labor and environmental groups in the US stage street protests. There are also charges it is a corrupt agreement, as it will help the music and movie businesses (Hollywood), as well as drug companies in the US — both major contributors to US President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.
Moreover, the TPP is not a free-trade agreement, as it is touted. It is a managed trade agreement in large measure aimed at Beijing and that is part of Washington’s “pivot to Asia” policy launched by the Obama administration to check China’s rise.
The deal was supposed to be finalized in December last year, but due to a lack of consensus among participants, had to be delayed. Then it was to be concluded in April, when Obama visited Asia, but that did not happen. Japan expressed misgivings over the pact’s provisions on agriculture (which would possibly be a problem for Taiwan too). Meanwhile, Republicans in the US, who normally support free-trade agreements, were distrustful of the Obama administration and their support is questionable.
The second example is the recent visit China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Minister Zhang Zhijun (張志軍) made to Taiwan — technically, the first such official visit as previous ones were made by non-government personnel. His presence attracted distracters.
Zhang’s visit was not unannounced; Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) proposed the trip several months earlier. Zhang’s agenda was also transparent and his visit little more than a friendly tour. Zhang did almost nothing while in Taiwan and said little that was important or controversial, and certainly nothing offensive. He presented a friendly, cheerful and optimistic mien. However, critics gathered to protest his presence.
They suggested-cum-demanded that he agree with Greater Tainan Mayor William Lai’s (賴清德) statement in China just days earlier that the future of Taiwan should be decided by the 23 million residents of Taiwan (not including Chinese elsewhere, as an official in China had suggested before). Zhang did not comply and was harangued as a result.
Yet Lai’s statement was hardly realistic. Taiwan is small and that means that it will not decide its future. Anyone who has studied history or international relations knows this. Europe’s small countries did not decide their futures, bigger countries did. That is true elsewhere in the world.
Taiwan’s future will be decided by the US and China; that may be hard to accept, but it is reality.
Nor is this situation something new or which is never talked about. Taiwan’s academics, pundits and media have frequently discussed the consequence of the US withdrawing its protective cover over the nation. It is calculated that the country would survive for a few hours or perhaps a few days, but not longer.
The US has stated its position regarding Taiwan’s future: that it will be decided by Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Washington-Taipei relations deteriorated badly during former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration because the US perceived that he was seeking to change the “status quo” unilaterally.
The third examples is that many politicians in Taiwan and their minions — lacking a sense of reality — rue Taiwan’s having become economically dependent on China, which means Taiwan’s sovereignty is challenged. Taiwan has become reliant on China; its exports across the strait now exceed 40 percent of its total, but this has been years in the making; it is not something hatched by the present administration.
Moreover, the alternative is cutting or reducing exports to China and adopting policies of protectionism and isolationism, which would be devastating to the nation’s growth and its prosperity. One cannot have it both ways: That is realism.
There are some facts to be considered that relate to the argument that Taiwanese sovereignty is at peril.
First, a few decades ago, nearly half of the nation’s exports went to the US and it did not suffer.
Second, other countries in Asia have also become dependent on China, which is now the foremost trading partner of nearly every East Asian country. They have not lost their sovereignty.
Third, it is well-known that global trade agreements have not been very successful in recent years, as regional agreements have been. The Chinese juggernaut means that Beijing controls regional trade arrangements in Asia and Taiwan, absent good commercial relations with China, is excluded to its detriment. It is pointless to wish that this were not true.
Fourth, there is the reality that while China wants Taiwan to rejoin the fatherland, it is not in a big hurry. Its biggest concern is continued economic growth and the current cross-strait situation from that perspective is quite acceptable; changing it would be harmful.
From another angle, looking at the “Taiwan issue” from Beijing’s viewpoint, especially thinking of what is unacceptable, namely Taiwan declaring formal or legal independence, or Japan gaining more influence over Taiwan, which is unlikely, Chinese leaders need not fret. Therefore Beijing can be patient and wait, and hope, for Taiwan to realize that getting closer to China might be a good idea.
Finally, protesting China’s encroachment on Taiwan’s sovereignty may be counterproductive. It plays into the hands of the Chinese military, which takes a much more aggressive stance toward Taiwan. In the worst situation, it could push civilian leaders in China to adopt a military solution to the issue.
Taiwan’s democracy is doing well, especially when seen in the context of that political system failing in many parts of the world. Democracy is in retreat in the developing world and is losing public support in the US, Europe and Japan. Its being alive and well in Taiwan makes the nation special, but it requires enlightened voters who face reality and distinguish between truth and political rhetoric.
John Copper is a professor (emeritus) of international studies at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS