With the Chinese economy facing headwinds, Beijing on Thursday last week unveiled a plan to set up an “integrated development demonstration zone” in its Fujian Province to encourage Taiwanese to emigrate or invest there, even as it has deployed a record number of military planes and ships to threaten Taiwan.
It is another example of China using the carrot and the stick.
The Fujian plan, which is being overseen by the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee and State Council, has 21 measures to promote integrated development with Taiwan and says that China has made “concessions” to facilitate Taiwanese living, working, studying and conducting business in Fujian, which include buying property and the enrollment of Taiwanese students in public schools. It has a goal of providing a business environment for Taiwanese to deepen Fujian-Taiwan industrial cooperation and develop a cross-strait financial market.
The measures seek to integrate development of Fujian’s Xiamen City and Kinmen County, as well as Fuzhou and Lienchiang County. They include a model for Xiamen-Kinmen joint infrastructure development, facilitating supplies of electricity and gas, and a bridge from Xiamen to Kinmen.
This Fujian plan is obviously another “united front” campaign as China seeks to unify with Taiwan.
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Deputy Director Pan Xianzhang (潘賢掌) has called the zone “a major initiative to consolidate the foundation for peaceful reunification.”
It could also be a pioneer project for China’s “one country, two systems” proposal, which has been rejected by the vast majority of Taiwanese. The Chinese state-funded Global Times has said the plan is “outlining the future development blueprint of Taiwan island,” while being oblivious to the unwillingness of Taiwanese and their right to self-determination.
The plan was announced even as China struggles with a high youth unemployment rate, a collapsing real-estate market, systemic risks in its financial system and a deteriorating business environment that has driven foreign investment away.
Some lawmakers in Taiwan have said that the Chinese proposal is a trap to gain funds and talent to boost China’s economic environment. It seems to be a compilation of other Chinese policies and measures, such as the 2011 Pingtan Comprehensive Experimental District free-trade plan and the 2018 “31 Taiwan-related Measures” that encouraged Taiwanese to relocate to China.
Beijing has proposed these campaigns to win over Taiwanese, but they have all been empty promises and failed. History indicates that the collapse of the Fujian project is just around the corner.
US President Joe Biden at the G20 summit last week said that China would not have the same capacity as before to invade Taiwan while Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) “has his hands full” coping with economic problems at home.
However, Xi has also long advocated “reunification” with Taiwan without war, although he has never ruled out the use of force.
Pairing economic incentives with military coercion is a trick China has employed for years, and there is little doubt that the latest “integration” plan was announced with an eye on Taiwan’s presidential and legislative elections, which are four months away.
The Fujian project seems destined to fail economically, but Taiwanese should be alert to its political aspect, the “unification” goal and the desire Beijing has to affect their elections.
Moreover, echoes of the plan proposed in Taiwan — such as an independent candidate’s “Kinmen peace initiative based on one China” and the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) “cross-strait demonstration economic zone” — are disguised “united front” campaigns that should be regarded with great suspicion.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS