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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS