Why is it that President Chen Shui-bian's (
I believe that in the current situation, in which no trust exists between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, China has no choice but to react with harsh criticism to Chen's speech to destroy the illusion of accord that he has sought to create. After all, Chen said that his speech was a response to the TAO's May 17 statement [including points on a resumption of cross-strait dialogue, realizing direct links to facilitate exchanges in commerce, trade and transportation, and establishing a mechanism of mutual trust in the military field]. He said that China needs to emphasize the intent of that statement and maintain that the two sides are still at odds, since Taiwan refuses to accept the "one China" principle.
Therefore, the TAO's immediate response and the criticism that has been subsequently aired in the People's Daily do not come as a surprise. But as of now, none of Beijing's statements have been issued by anyone higher than vice-ministerial level, so the critical tone cannot be regarded as being unalterable.
China's policy toward Taiwan has always been dictated from the top. But three days after Chen made his speech, no clear policy had emerged from Beijing. If we are still waiting for a response from the senior leadership, then we don't understand Beijing's policy-making mechanism. The TAO's Oct. 13 response and subsequent articles in the People's Daily all reiterate that "easing tensions is a lie, that Taiwan independence is the truth," but have completely ignored Chen's proposal for direct cargo and passenger links across the Strait.
When questioned by the media about direct links after delivering China's response to Chen's speech, TAO spokesperson Zhang Mingqing (張銘清) said it was a "domestic issue," but this is his own interpretation of the current situation and not an official statement approved by the Beijing government.
With Chen promoting Taiwan sovereignty and "one country on either side" [of the Strait], Beijing surely had no choice but to bring out "domestic issues" to protect itself and avoid creating the impression that it was permitting the three links on Taiwan's terms. But is the "domestic affairs" slogan just a defense posture, or is it one of the key points that China wants Taiwan to accept? It will take some time before this becomes apparent.
In fact, to interpret China's policy, both the status of the official making a statement and the question of which media outlets report on it must be taken into account. Unlike Taiwan's chaotic political environment, China's political system has clear delineations of status and form which can be analyzed. In dealing with cross-strait affairs, the highest authority is the Central Leadership Group for Taiwan Affairs. Therefore, Taiwan shouldn't pay too much attention to the statements issued by China unless they are made by national leaders, the Central Leadership Group or the TAO.
Apart from statements by Beijing officials, we should also pay special attention to the level and format of published criticisms of Taiwan. The highest level of published statement is an editorial by the People's Daily and articles by the commentary teams of either the People's Daily or Xinhua News Agency. Below that are articles posted by either the People's Daily or Xinhua under real names or pseudonyms. Media in Hong Kong or small papers in China represent the lowest level.
So how should we develop cross-strait relations? I believe that the government in Taipei should be aware that speeches by Chen alone are not sufficient, and must be accompanied by substantial gestures of goodwill. Words alone will not only not improve matters, but could easily make them worse. If we do not act with both confidence and patience, how can we achieve peace or development?
Beijing should also understand that repeatedly ignoring opportunities for peace by insisting that all issues brought up by Taiwan impinge on "one China" is not to anybody's advantage. Since former president Jiang Zemin's (
Andy Chang is a professor in the Graduate Institute of China Studies at Tamkang University.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition
The international women’s soccer match between Taiwan and New Zealand at the Kaohsiung Nanzih Football Stadium, scheduled for Tuesday last week, was canceled at the last minute amid safety concerns over poor field conditions raised by the visiting team. The Football Ferns, as New Zealand’s women’s soccer team are known, had arrived in Taiwan one week earlier to prepare and soon raised their concerns. Efforts were made to improve the field, but the replacement patches of grass could not grow fast enough. The Football Ferns canceled the closed-door training match and then days later, the main event against Team Taiwan. The safety
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS