Special envoy to APEC James Soong’s (宋楚瑜) “natural” interaction with the leaders of other nations in the Asia-Pacific at the two-day APEC leaders’ summit in Da Nang, Vietnam, was given blanket coverage by domestic media. On his return to Taiwan, Soong headed to the Presidential Office to report on his “considerable diplomatic achievements” at the summit.
What follows are some thoughts on Soong’s suitability as Taiwan’s envoy to APEC, as well as reflections on Taiwan’s wider diplomatic strategy.
First, was Soong the right person to reach a breakthrough within the international community?
APEC is one of the few international forums in which Taiwan is able to participate relatively freely. One of the aims for Taiwan when taking part, aside from using it as an opportunity to build upon natural friendships, is to achieve substantial interaction with other countries. In this respect, Soong spared no effort.
However, as Soong does not hold executive powers and has no ability to influence Presidential Office policy, even if he had wanted to reach a diplomatic breakthrough or perhaps participate in a regional economic cooperation group, this would have first required high-level approval from the government.
Second, is Soong a defender of Taiwan’s values? To answer this question, one must first ask: Are Soong’s personal endorsements and his political ideology, both past and present, in line with majority public opinion?
Does he represent President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration? Or is he just a more internationalist version of those politicians who believe that stability and economic growth should be prioritized at the expense of everything else?
If the 2015 meeting between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) already left the public fearful, then at a more important international forum such as APEC, it is all the more likely that a politician who possesses a conservative, party-state ideology would pass on the chance to make Taiwan’s voice heard on the international stage.
Third, in terms of lowering tensions across the Strait, what can Soong offer?
Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Tsai have both regarded Soong as being open to cooperating with the pan-green camp, while at the same time being largely acceptable to Beijing.
However, Soong has achieved little in terms of changing Beijing’s indifference, or downright hostility, to the Democratic Progressive Party or Taiwanese public opinion.
This has been Beijing’s consistent stance toward Taiwan and is reflected in the measures it has adopted. Put another way, even if the Chinese Communist Party “designates” or favors a certain political party or individual as the sole “window to cross-strait relations,” it is by no means certain that the Taiwanese public will find this acceptable.
Finally, there is the question of what this means for electoral prospects.
The Tsai administration has shown ample goodwill to Soong by making government resources available.
However, Soong’s People First Party, both in and outside the legislature, sides more with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on many issues. This is perhaps based on his stance of essentially being in “perpetual opposition,” but it does arouse suspicion.
It at least appears that he is taking advantage of the stage the Tsai administration has given him to gain exposure, which will benefit his party come the next election, rather than being sincere in his cooperation with the government and trying to solve some of the country’s predicaments.
After the media attention subsides, there remains something about this year’s APEC meeting that the public will fail to find reassurance in.
It is unclear to many of us why we are forced to continuously go through these cycles of hand-wringing and groveling, hoping for some kind of acquiescence or tacit approval by Beijing, before we can achieve any form of vague, ambiguous room for maneuver in international forums.
Jethro Wang is an MA student at National Taiwan University’s Graduate Institute of National Development.
Translated by Edward Jones and Paul Cooper
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS