Before the campaign for the nation's presidential election has even been formally launched, the Chinese government warned Taiwan and the US; although it would have been wise to restrain itself from getting involved in Taiwan's elections so as not to repeat its mistakes from 1996 and 2000 when it campaigned against candidates it disliked. Beijing's leaders seem to lack wisdom and tolerance.
Faced with Taiwan's call for referendum legislation and a new constitution, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
Wen tried to intensify his intimidation by saying "We completely understand the desire of the Taiwan compatriots for democracy and a peaceful environment. However, when the leadership of the Taiwan authorities wants to separate Taiwan from Chinese territory, no Chinese will agree."
So far, Wen is the highest-ranking Chinese official to declare Beijing's formal stance on Taiwan's referendum legislation. It is generally believed that Wen's upcoming trip to the US, scheduled to begin on Dec. 7, is aimed at urging the US to suppress Taiwan's recent move toward independence.
Since China has never implemented democracy on its soil, Wen's understanding of it is poor. Holding referendums and writing a constitution are only two ways for Taiwanese people to exercise their political rights. They are not necessarily equal to Taiwan independence.
Furthermore, Chinese leaders don't understand what Taiwanese people want. It's China that is pushing Taiwan toward independence. In the history of interaction between the two sides, Taiwanese people have few happy memories. The leadership in Beijing must ask itself: Has China ever offered any effective incentives for promoting unification?
China has long attempted to oppress and suffocate Taiwan's diplomatic activities. The regime never ceases its efforts to intimidate Taiwan either through propaganda or military force. During the epidemic of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Beijing did not cooperate with Taiwan and concealed the reality of the SARS situation in China. When Taiwan needed a helping hand from the World Health Organization, China not only obstructed the process but also said "Who cares about you [Taiwanese]?"
Even in the economic arena, China spares no effort to lower Taiwan's status. To Taiwan's proposal to initiate the small three links, China said no. When Taiwan pushed for direct freight links, China refused to talk. Even those hundreds of thousands of China-based Taiwanese businesspeople, who function as a driving force behind China's bright economic performance, are in the eyes of the Chinese government and people are just cash cows to be milked.
Suppose that a man, upon breaking up with his wife, threatens her by saying "If you divorce me, I'm going to kill you." Most likely, the woman would divorce him and run as far away as she could. The same principle applies to cross-strait relations. If China mistakenly thinks that imposing pressure on the relationship can bring about reunion, the result may turn out to be just the opposite.
China does not need to "pay any price" to prevent Taiwan from moving toward independence. All it needs to do is change its attitudes and respect Taiwan's current status as an independent and sovereign entity. Let Taiwan have freedom. Take away the walls and the missiles across the Strait. Let people freely engage across the Strait and discover each other's merits and their common interests. Then there may be a chance to start the relationship anew.
Let bygones be bygones. After the two sides start to treat each other equally, perhaps they will reunite. Even if they don't, they would know each other well enough that the breakup wouldn't seem too bad.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and