The incoming Democratic Progressive Party government will hopefully establish better connections with civil society in Europe. Civil society in Europe can be a vehicle for breaking barriers and rigid forms of cooperation between Taiwanese and European politicians, diplomacy and institutions. Taiwan’s future is likely to depend, among many other factors, on how well it connects with European citizens and other societies around the world. It is here that civil society, broadly speaking, can play an important role.
Direct conversations between civil society, academics and politicians can be facilitated by civil society in Europe. One example is the roundtable discussion at the European Parliament on March 15 about Taiwan’s democracy, which included all main political parties and civil society in Taiwan, academics and members of the European Parliament.
The event was organized by the European Parliament’s Taiwan Friendship Group and Taiwan Corner. Taiwan Corner used its network across political parties and academics in Taiwan and Europe, while the Taiwan Friendship Group ensured the interest of politicians.
Such successful events organized independently will hopefully be encouraged in the future. Openness would allow various channels in civil society to come forward with alternative, and perhaps better, ideas.
Political parties and European institutions need such ideas to move forward in new directions to benefit Taiwan’s future.
This new direction is not embraced by the current Taipei Representative Office in Brussels. It seems to have misunderstood the importance of civil society. After the office was invited to the roundtable discussion, it tried to remove a speaker addressing social movements, alter the title of the event and invite its own speaker. Even after the successful event, the office continued its negative campaign. Obviously, a new direction would require a new mindset among Taiwan’s representatives.
Moreover, a new direction would require the politicizing of European society about Taiwan’s political situation.
The reason is that alliances need to be created between politicians and European citizens that can add new dimensions on how to work for Taiwan’s future. People cannot expect that from the established political system. Politicizing means engagement in meaningful and open debate directly with European citizens about Taiwan’s place in the world and political situation.
This would perhaps only consist of small steps, but it would be steps in the right direction. This approach can be a new and exciting challenge for Taiwanese groups that tend to be Taiwan-centric, because the groups act as important social networks rather than as political activists connected directly to European politicians and citizens.
One way forward for civil society is to use Europe’s media landscape. Trustworthy and available knowledge is becoming increasingly important to journalists and politicians in Europe, because resources are scarce.
Taiwan is not well-covered by international media. One example is the Sunflower movement in 2014, which was not mentioned much in international media. This was in stark contrast with the coverage of Hong Kong’s Umbrella movement. However, in Denmark, the events were covered and debated when Taiwanese civil society in Denmark contacted journalists.
Taiwan shows its presence on many levels, including theater, music, movies, participation in various organizations, and exchanges between universities and high schools. A focus on politicization is not to exclude these vital initiatives, but to send a friendly reminder that politics changes life and it can change Taiwan’s future.
Michael Danielsen is chairman of Taiwan Corner, an independent member-based association.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS