In his New Year's address, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) stressed that the "active management, effective opening" policy would be the centerpiece of new thinking and policies concerning cross-strait economic relations. Just when the whole nation is celebrating that Chen has been able to leave the "active opening" mess behind, we hear voices in the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) demanding that "Taiwan must find the correct position for itself" and saying openly that they are opposed to Chen.
"Active opening" has been the pan-blue camp's main platform in the post-Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) era. Together with the so-called 1992 consensus, "one China," and "promoting unification through economic means," it becomes a complete political discourse with consistent logic aimed at national unification.
In contrast to the pan-blue camp's advocacy of unification, the DPP in the past saw itself as an indigenous political grouping advocating Taiwan first, sovereignty and independence. After its accession to power, we were all astonished to see the party adopt the "active opening" policy which set up the strange situation of a pan-green government implementing pan-blue camp economic policy. This set the party up for corruption and a transformation into a pan blue-style party, and the big group of undecided voters also started leaning toward pan-blue ideas as the economy became biased toward China. Realizing this, last year, the Chinese Communist Party thought the time was ripe for the "Anti-Secession" Law. China was probably not surprised when then Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) traveled to Beijing and spoke of "joining hands with China to suppress Taiwan's independence." If Lien's and Soong's pilgrimages were a sell-out of Taiwan, then what is the difference between them and those who ignore the "Anti-Secession" Law and now talk of "active positioning, self-assured opening?"
Espousing economic integration and "going west" despite the fact that China has more than 800 missiles aimed at Taiwan, and on the other hand talking about writing a new constitution, changing the nation's name, and there being one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait, the DPP is a party full of contradiction and devoid of logic. If this goes on for much longer, the party is certain to lose public credibility. The DPP only has itself to blame for having lost both the legislative elections and the recent local government elections. Have the people holding on to the "go west" idea and promoting "positioning" learned their lesson from the election losses?
Does Taiwan have to find "the correct position" for itself? Those DPP members promoting "self-assured opening" say that "the most important task is to clearly define Taiwan's position and the role Taiwan should play in the new international division of labor." The question is whether we should really position ourselves as part of the "Chinese economic sphere" and become a link in the international division of labor based on that position.
They seem to deliberately ignore the terrifying fact that 90 percent of Taiwan's overseas investments are concentrated in China, and that accumulated Taiwanese investments there have reached US$278 billion. Even counting only the US$64.9 billion in investments officially approved by the Investment Commission in 2004, those investments make up 2.3 percent of Taiwan's GDP for 2004 (for Japan, the corresponding figure is 0.05 percent, and for the US, 0.03 percent).
It wouldn't be going too far to say that this kind of China fever will make the nation subordinate to China. Not only does it seriously hamper domestic investment, it also causes irreparable damage to national economic security. If Taiwan becomes a member of China's economic sphere and a tight structure for the division of labor between the two is put in place, will China allow Taiwan to enjoy democracy and freedom and continue to be a sovereign and independent state?
Chen knows the answer to this question, and that is why he has bravely stepped up to pull Taiwan out of the bog that is the "greater China economic sphere" and "one country, two systems," reduce dependence on China and return the nation to its correct position. In his New Year's address, the president said: "To meet the challenges of increasing international competition, the only viable approach is to fully implement the economic development strategy of `deeply cultivating Taiwan while reaching out to the world;' and we should not become reliant on a particular market or a single economic entity. To that end, although we cannot turn a blind eye to China's market, we should not view the China market as the only or the last market. Globalization is not tantamount to `Sinicization.' While Taiwan would never close itself off to the world, we shall also not `lock in' our economic lifeline and all our bargaining chips in China."
This, and only this, is the meaning of "correct positioning." It is the only way for Taiwan to find its own way and to enjoy an independent, free and prosperous future.
"Wake up, Mr. President" is a now-famous expression used by the chairman of a certain opposition party. The president is now awake and he has a handle on the correct position for Taiwan. In fact, it is those who continue to be infatuated with the Chinese market who need to wake up, as do the pro-unification chairman of a certain political party and those in the pan-green camp who continue their calls for "self-assured opening" and the organization of an academic society for cross-strait political and economic issues.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS