Most people would like to see a reduction in tensions across the Taiwan Strait.
The outdated "Taiwan Crisis," as many news wires and think tanks melodramatically call a "dispute" that is usually quite boring, is generally cited as potentially one of the most explosive conflicts in Asia, if not the world.
Dramatizing China-Taiwan relations is all well and good for people trying to sell books championing policy proposals that are so unrealistic as to sound like parody (think Ted Galen Carpenter's America's Coming War with China, which essentially advocates a complete US withdrawal from all of Asia to stop the "coming war").
But when senior diplomats from the countries involved sensationalize the issue, people must first let their shock at the official's irresponsibility and callousness subside, before trying to determine what the motivation was.
Yesterday, China's ambassador to the UN, Sha Zukang (
"The China population is six times or five times that of the United States," Sha said. "Why blame China? [for it's rising defense spending] ... It's better for the US to shut up and keep quiet. It's much, much better."
Later, with regard to what China would do if Taiwan declared independence, he added: "We will do the business at any cost," which one can only assume means going to war.
"It's not a matter of how big Taiwan is, but for China, one inch of the territory is more valuable than the life of our people. We will never concede on that," Sha said.
Now, there isn't much here that hasn't been said before. Chinese military officers and academics often make threats of dire consequences if Taiwan declares independence.
There is little need to address the ambassador's emotionally charged ranting.
Obviously people aren't concerned about the relationship between defense spending and demographics: They're concerned about sudden and substantial increases in military spending by authoritarian states with a history of internal and external violence.
What is most shocking in this case is the fact that this was not a retired colonel writing a paper in an obscure Chinese defense journal; this was Beijing's envoy to the UN being interviewed by one of the most influential news agencies on the planet.
Why would he say such things now? The Taiwanese government hasn't done anything "provocative" lately. US-China relations aren't particularly bad at present, although they have been gradually worsening throughout the Bush administration.
Contrast these comments with recent events in Taiwan. Efforts to liberalize cross-strait trade restrictions are finally gaining momentum. Meanwhile, pro-unification supporters are in ascendancy as the ruling party implodes over a flurry of scandals.
So what do Sha's comments mean?
They mean that the world needs to be very alarmed. No one questions that China is a rising power. But there are a lot of people who are convinced that all China wants is a little respect: If they treat it like a responsible country, it will act like a responsible country. This is a mistake.
Beijing is not responsible. Tired of being the "Sick Man of Asia" that it was for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, China has been self-medicating with the only narcotic it knows: ethnic nationalism.
China isn't the Sick Man of Asia anymore: It's a drug addict.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS