Today will see another review of the pan-blue camp's proposed amendments to the Statute Governing the Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (
The proposed amendments will see all restrictions on cross-strait transport lifted just three months after the amendments become law. Both academics and government officials have warned that such an action is risky as three months is nowhere near enough time to solve all the technical issues involved in establishing direct links, not to mention dealing with the increased threat to national security the simplified regulations present.
But in its haste to please its benefactors in Beijing, the pan-blue camp, under the pretext that the relaxations will be good for the economy, is determined to hastily push through the amendments.
The pan-blues' rationale for taking the initiative and forcing through the bill is that the Democratic Progressive Party government, with its "anti-China bias," is purposely dragging its feet when it comes to negotiating the issue with the Chinese government. In reality it is the Chinese government's refusal to deal directly with any government-level institution, or anything that gives Taiwan a semblance of sovereignty, that is causing the delay. The government is rightfully unwilling to downgrade Taiwan's sovereign status. But still, the pan-blues are willing to play along with Beijing's demands, and laughably deny that the issue has anything to do with sovereignty.
This is the same pan-blue camp that constantly urges the president to uphold the institutions of the Republic of China while at home and abroad, but the very next minute attempts to downgrade it to the status of a local Chinese government in compliance with Beijing's humiliating demands.
The pan-blue camp would do well to step back and consider two important issues. If it decides to bypass the government on this issue, the pan-blue camp will set a dangerous precedent that will affect it if it is returned to power. Usurping the power of a democratically elected government will damage government institutions, such as the Mainland Affairs Council, beyond repair and goes against the spirit of the Constitution.
Another important consideration for the pan-blues is the reaction of the Taiwanese public, because whether they like it or not, Taiwan is a democracy. The Taiwanese are a pragmatic bunch, and they are probably willing to trade some of the trappings of sovereignty for lasting security and prosperity, but they will also defend their democracy to the last, and fight against anything that threatens it.
And as the People First Party discovered with its "cross-strait peace advancement" bill, which was quietly sidelined before last December's local government elections when it became clear how unpopular it was, not everything that Beijing would like to impose upon Taiwan in the name of prosperity goes down well with the Taiwanese public.
The government is in a no-win situation on this issue: It is vilified by the pan-blues if it refuses to speed up the process, but if it goes ahead with relaxing the regulations and national security is compromised then it will receive equal amounts of scorn from the public.
One solution would be for the government and the pan-blues to negotiate an agreement that satisfies the immediate needs of Taiwanese businesspeople for direct flights and sea links, yet at the same time safeguards the nation's sovereignty and national security; a compromise that unfortunately, in the current political climate, seems unlikely.
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