Fortunately, PFP Legislator Kao Ming-chien (高明見) did not make a speech at this week's SARS conference in Kuala Lumpur. Otherwise, international disputes would have followed.
Kao is a doctor at National Taiwan University Hospital and a PFP legislator-at-large. At the SARS conference, he might as well have been considered China's representative because he was one of the people on Beijing's list of recommended participants. The way Kao participated in the World Health Organization (WHO) forum has allowed all of us to sense the true meaning of PFP Chairman James Soong's (宋楚瑜) promise that Taiwan will join the WHO within two years if he gets elected next year.
All the problems will go away if Taiwan agrees to become a province of China. We have been enlightened on this issue, thanks to the PFP's reminder. Why couldn't the government and the Department of Health think of such an easy way instead of taking such great pains to fight to the bitter end? The Kao model embodies capitulation, or the PFP's cross-strait policy under the "one-China roof." There would not be any problems if only we would capitulate to China.
Kao's participation in the conference has become the focus of attention because he was not a member of Taiwan's delegation. The official delegation consisted of Center for Disease Control Director Su Ih-jen (蘇益仁), Academia Sinica researcher Ho Mei-hsiang and Chang Shang-chwen (張上淳) and Chen Pei-jer (陳培哲), both doctors at National Taiwan University Hospital.
Next, Beijing said all of Taiwan's invitations were forwarded by China. Beijing did forward the invitations, but Taiwan refused to accept them and protested to the WHO. The WHO then sent separate invitations by e-mail to Taiwan's four delegates. This is why Kao's invitation and name tag differed from Su's. This difference is where a country's dignity and strength of character lie.
We don't know if the PFP just does not know the real story or is trying to obscure the facts, but the PFP took the copies of the invitations rejected by the Department of Health to argue that these invitations are the same as Kao's. This is a clear attempt to shift the focus of blame off Kao.
Political figures should be able to make sound judgements. China must have notified Kao before making a recommendation to the WHO and Kao must have agreed to Beijing's recommendation. This was Kao's first mistake. When government officials and the delegation protested the name problem to the WHO, Kao made a second mistake because he tacitly acknowledged his status as China's representative. Then when there was an uproar back home over his participation, Kao not only failed to admit his mistakes but also attempted to blame the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and National Security Council. Such political mistakes are almost intolerable.
The fact that Kao represented China suggests that the PFP acknowledges Kao as the regional representative of China's Taiwan Province. Kao's trip is the PFP's China policy put into practice. Perhaps Soong still has illusions about the Republic of China governing all of China in 1947 and thought that Kao therefore could represent China at large.
In politics Kao is like a frog, an amphibian which thinks it can gain advantage from both sides but in the end gets exactly the opposite. Terrestrial animals do not see frogs as terrestrial animals and aquatic creatures do not see frogs as one of them. This nation did not acknowledge Kao as its representative and Beijing is unable to let Kao speak on behalf of China. Even the PFP said Kao did not represent it.
Kao may have thought that he could do whatever he wanted on either side of the Taiwan Strait, but he was wrong.
Vincent Lin is the deputy editor-in-chief of the Taipei Times.
Translated by Grace Shaw
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS