Contrary to some excessive speculation that the government might loosen restrictions on cross-strait economic ties, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) reset the tone of his administration's cross-strait policy in his New Year address to the nation.
He replaced the old doctrine of "active opening, effective management" with more emphasis on reducing the risks in increasing exposure to China.
Although the Presidential Office has denied any change in the nation's cross-strait policy, Chen's reorientation was a timely reminder of what matters in a political atmosphere in which leaders of the pan-blue opposition parties and some pro-unification local media are manipulating public opinion to open the nation up to the China market.
While both Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) suffered a severe decline in public support after the party's huge loss in last month's local elections, the direction of national policy should be consistent and not be forced to change simply because of one electoral result or a minor change in the overall political landscape.
Moreover, any reading of Chen's speech should not be based solely on the adjustment of putting more emphasis on "active management."
Rather, more attention should be paid to the whole context of Chen's address, including the military threat posed by China and Taiwan's severe lack of self-defense capabilities.
Although Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) political influence is on the rise after securing the leadership of the pan-blue camp and probably the KMT's nomination for the next presidential election, the nation's independence will not be obscured by Ma's recent comment that "unification" is the KMT's ultimate goal.
Ma certainty has the right to openly embrace unification with China on behalf of his party. However, as the likely KMT candidate for the next presidential election and perhaps the most popular political figure in the country, Ma's words and deeds are significant in terms of China's "divide and conquer" strategy.
It is therefore imperative for the Chen administration and the DPP to assert the government's four principles of sovereignty, democracy, peace and parity as premises for cross-strait negotiations, as well as insisting on giving the Taiwanese people freedom of choice when it comes to the nation's developing relationship with China.
Moreover, complex cross-strait economic and trade policies should not be simplified into a dichotomy between "opening up" and "tightening up"; nor should "active opening" be given emphasis at the expense of the more important "effective management."
In other words, Taiwan cannot make concessions to China simply for the sake of making concessions.
With the 2008 Olympic Games on the way, and with the chances of the pan-blue camp regaining power in 2008 increasing, it is only natural for China to continue with its "no contact" policy toward Chen.
Under these circumstances, Chen must clearly understand the extent to which Taiwan can gain by "keeping a firm stance while moving forward pragmatically" with China.
By incorporating more effective management mechanisms, the government will not only reduce the risks involved in investing in China, but also maintain a relative advantage.
By emphasizing governmental or quasi-governmental negotiations on the opening of direct air links, Taiwan will be able to safeguard its own dignity and sovereignty.
The pan-blue camp may overlook Beijing's explicit political maneuverings -- such as the passage of the so-called "Anti-Secession" Law last March -- to enable the People's Liberation Army to "legally" attack Taiwan, but the DPP government should keep reminding Taiwanese people of the importance of maintaining national security in addition to purely economic interests.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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