Reportedly, Beijing has extended an invitation to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) to attend a cross-party forum in China. It is widely believed that both Lien and Soong will accept the invitation. If this is true, Beijing is in the process of turning dialogue with the pan-blue opposition leaders into a routine matter. The implications of this for future cross-strait relations need to be closely examined.
One agreement reached between Chinese Communist Party chief and President Hu Jintao (
As with Hu's meetings with Lien and Soong, the significance of such a forum is mostly symbolic: it helps reinforce Beijing's "one China" principle. Just imagine: If representatives from all of China's political parties, including the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its puppet parties, congregate in one room with Lien and Soong among them, wouldn't that present an ideal opportunity for "one China" propaganda? The underlying message obviously would be that political parties in Taiwan are no different from other parties in China.
It should surprise none that President Chen Shui-bian (
The "Chinese" political parties -- including the KMT and PFP -- can chat amongst themselves until their faces turn red. But the forum will remain empty talk, because the KMT and PFP are merely opposition parties in Taiwan. No substantive change in cross-strait relations can come about until Beijing speaks with the duly elected leader of Taiwan -- which happens to be President Chen. Fortunately for Taiwan, Chen isn't ready to sell out Taiwan by embracing the "one China" principle in exchange for photo opportunities and tea with Hu. And that's why Beijing doesn't invite him.
One cannot help but ask the following: If Beijing knows perfectly well that speaking with Taiwan's opposition politicians won't help resolve the immediate problems in cross-strait relations, why bother?
First and foremost, such meetings create an illusion in the international community that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are preparing to bury the hatchet. This will help ease the international pressure that China's has received for its military threats against Taiwan.
There is also the potential for "gradual unification" -- as pointed out by many commentators in Taiwan with increasing alarm. If more and more individuals, politicians and sectors within Taiwan bypass the government and willingly relegate their exchanges and contacts with the other side of the Taiwan Strait to the status of "domestic" or "internal" contacts, de facto unification may one day become a reality.
Finally, there is the issue of the messages conveyed by Taiwan's opposition to Beijing during their visits, which are closely monitored by the international community. They may speak on behalf of the segment of the Taiwanese public which supports unification -- a minority of the population, it should be pointed out. But because the pan-blue leaders' contacts with Beijing are often high profile, their pro-unification stance is amplified, creating the impression that they represent the mainstream view.
Given those dangers, pan-blue politicians should learn to behave in a more responsible manner in their contacts with Beijing.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS