A lot has been made of Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu’s (陳菊) comments during her trip to China last week to promote this summer’s World Games after she used the words “President Ma [Ying-jeou, 馬英九]” and “central government” during a meeting with the mayor of Beijing.
Chen became the first high-profile Taiwanese official to make such comments on the record in China. Chen’s actions have received a lot of domestic media attention and earned her rare praise from politicians across the political spectrum.
Although her comments were censored by Chinese television, she succeeded in reminding people that it is possible to travel to China and meet senior Chinese officials while upholding Taiwan’s dignity.
Chen’s behavior is in stark contrast to that of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄), who during a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) on Tuesday referred to the situation in Taiwan using the term daonei (島內), or “on the island.”
Wu could not find a suitable opportunity to mention “Taiwan,” let alone use words that hinted at Taiwan’s sovereign status. The excuse given by KMT officials afterwards was that Wu’s terminology was a product of his upbringing.
This just doesn’t wash.
But then again, Taiwanese should not expect less from Wu, who has often shown himself to be no champion of titles, regularly referring to the president as “Mr Ma.”
As well as highlighting the cowardice of top KMT officials such as Wu and former chairman Lien Chan (連戰), Chen’s trip was a reminder that, contrary to what the KMT would have us believe, it is possible to achieve positive results when dealing with China — and to do so with self-respect.
The blaze of propaganda surrounding Ma’s cross-strait “success” since the KMT returned to office has blurred the achievements during the eight years of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government from 2000 until last year. During that time, Taiwanese companies were allowed to invest billions of dollars in China, much more than had been allowed under previous KMT governments. But the government never felt it had to belittle Taiwan to achieve its goals.
It was the DPP that in 2001 initiated the “small three links” and later started cross-strait flights during holiday periods with a view to eventually upgrading them. It also completed negotiations on cross-strait charter flights.
The Chinese held off on implementing them for fear of giving the DPP government a propaganda coup. Instead, it waited to let the KMT earn all the glory after it regained power.
The DPP also made the first tentative steps toward opening the country to Chinese tourists, although it was skeptical about letting too many visit at a time, and with good reason.
The problem for the DPP was that it failed to properly publicize these achievements, allowing them to be drowned out by endless attacks from the opposition and the pro-unification media.
While relations between Taiwan and China were far from perfect during its tenure, the DPP at least demonstrated that it is not necessary to denigrate Taiwan to earn economic concessions from Beijing. If only so much could be said of the present government.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS