The 2023 Taipei-Shanghai Twin-City Forum is scheduled for next month in Shanghai. It will be the 14th forum since it was launched in 2010, and also the first in which Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) participates as Taipei mayor.
It is unclear exactly how beneficial the twin-city forum has been to the residents of Taipei over the course of the past decade or so. By all appearances, it has become little more than a stage for the Taipei mayor to build personal relations with the other side of the Taiwan Strait.
Before he left office last year, then-Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) went against the Taipei City Council’s resolution by insisting on holding the 13th twin-city forum despite the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) constant threat against Taiwan with warplanes and warships.
As a result, Ko saddled the Taipei City Government with a debt of nearly NT$1 million (US$31,857) for the cost of the forum that has remained unresolved.
If the twin-city forum was really for the city’s and its residents’ benefit, would the council have opposed it? Ko’s wife claimed that the Ko family would pay the debt out of its own pocket if necessary, but as it would later emerge, it only talked the talk. It did not walk the walk.
This year’s twin-city forum is set to take place late next month, which is very close to the 65th anniversary of the “823 Artillery Bombardment” launched by China against Taiwan’s Kinmen on Aug. 23, 1958, during the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. On this day of great significance, as a descendant of then-president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), the mayor should stay in Taiwan just to observe the Chiang family’s spirit of “gentlemen and thieves cannot coexist” (漢賊不兩立).
How ironic it is that he is going instead to meet with top CCP officials for a merry shindig in Shanghai, instead of paying respects to the brave Taiwanese troops who died resisting the Chinese People’s Liberation Army in Kinmen.
Huang Wei-ping is a former think tank researcher.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
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
RSS