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
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
RSS