The pro- and anti-unification media in Taiwan rarely agree on cross-strait matters. This time, however, they seem to have the same opinion of Japanese scholar Kenichi Ohmae's prediction that Taiwan and China will unify under a federal system in 2005. According to the local media, the establishment of a Chinese federation in 2005 is an impossible dream.
Ohmae is a famous economist who once served as an adviser to the KMT government. He has a deep understanding of the economic development of both China and Japan. Unfortunately, his understanding of the cross-strait political situation and Taiwan's internal situation is inadequate. Ohmae's prediction about unification was made from an economic perspective. As China rapidly grows and becomes a leading power in Asia, it's conceivable that Taiwan will have to "hitch a ride" from China in order to prosper. But economic exchanges will not necessarily lead to a political merger.
Ohmae obviously does not understand mainstream opinion and political reality in Taiwan. The island was occupied by the Dutch, the Qing dynasty, the Japanese and the KMT government in past centuries. It has also faced constant oppression and humiliation from China.
Today, the Taiwanese have finally built a democratic regime here after suffering numerous hardships. Most would find it unacceptable to give up their autonomy and yield to Beijing's rule. Besides, Taiwan has already entered a democratic era. No politician or political party can make decisions for the Taiwanese people -- especially regarding Taiwan's China policy. Only the Taiwanese have a say over the nation's future. This has become a consensus in Taiwan.
No conclusion will be reached on the unification issue before the 2004 presidential election, because the DPP has to give consideration to the voices of the pro-independence camp, and the opposition camp worries that it may be labeled as "selling out Taiwan." After the election, it is also impossible that the newly elected president will commit political suicide and surrender to Beijing by degrading his post to that of chief executive of China's Taiwan Special Administrative Region.
Ohmae is also out of touch with the current situation in China. His 2005 unification theory was made on the basis of Chinese President Jiang Zemin's (江澤民) rule. However, Chinese Vice President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) was elected general secretary of the CCP Central Committee at the party's 16th National Congress last year. Hu's leading role has gradually solidified, and although Jiang's political influence still remains strong, he will no longer be the head of the state. Therefore, the basis of his prediction does not really exist.
Ohmae is unfamiliar with models of cross-strait unification. He thinks it makes no difference whether the resulting entity is named a commonwealth, confederation, federation or incorporates a system like the EU. But these terms carry different meanings in the fields of international politics and international law.
A federation is formed by a number of separate states under a central government. A hierarchy exists between the central government and each state. This is the "one country, two systems" formula that Taiwan cannot accept.
A "China Confederation" would be an organization loosely joined by several nations, more like the EU or a commonwealth. Taiwan's political parties are in favor of this system, but Jiang Zemin gave it a thumbs down.
Ohmae also neglected the influence of international factors. As Western nations eagerly promote globalization, anti-terrorism and anti-hegemony, will they support Taiwan-China unification in 2005, enabling China to dominate Asia? Could Japan feel secure if a Chinese Federation arose? Given international worries about China, cross-strait unification by 2005 is impossible.
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