China wants to absorb Taiwan. That’s its policy, which it calls “complete reunification” (完全統一). The policy will change as circumstances change. The basic strategy is a two-pronged approach of military force and the so-called “united front strategy,” a classic carrot-and-stick policy that is manifested in a variety of ways. Intimidation by violence is relatively simple, but Beijing can be more creative with the carrots.
What is the united front strategy? Put simply, it’s the use of underhanded tactics to divide the enemy, win over the majority and come down on the minority, in order to crush both — divide and conquer. In the past it spouted noble concepts like equality and justice, but then the world found out how Beijing ruled its own country. After that, it needed to offer some incentives to implement the united front policy. It had little choice.
Beijing has used these incentives to lure Taiwanese businesspeople, and dangled other carrots to tempt the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to move from opposing the communists to colluding with them. Fast forward to when President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) came to power, and even Beijing was surprised by how pro-China his administration became.
And so Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) collects incentives he can parcel out to Ma so he can keep up the litany of demands. An example is the promise to reduce restrictions on tourists, which fell through, leaving Ma having to make more concessions.
The same is happening with the signing of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA). Meanwhile, we have not seen an actual improvement in diplomatic relations since Ma gave up and conceded to the use of “Chinese Taipei.”
There have been improvements in other regards, in that Ma is being rewarded for pressing on with his pro-China stance, but only because this very stance is being met with fierce opposition in Taiwan, and Ma’s popularity is sinking like a stone. These rewards are an emergency measure to prevent the government from crashing.
During the Typhoon Morakot disaster in August, Beijing offered to help, ostensibly to help the rescue efforts, but actually to gather some intelligence. When the US got wind of this it rushed a US rescue team to Taiwan to diffuse a potential crisis. Beijing wasn’t happy, and is still fuming.
In mid-November, Zheng Bijian (鄭必堅) from Hu’s staff came to Taipei with some retired generals to take part in the first round of cross-strait talks, where they blasted the pro-independence faction. One week later, Chinese Major General Luo Yuan (援), a known hawk, publicly accused Ma of following a policy of “peaceful secession” with his “three noes” — no unification, no independence, and no use of force — obliging Ma to backtrack.
Then there was another perceptible shift. When China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) made his second visit to Taiwan, he was met not only by protests from Taiwanese but also Ma’s inability to quell unrest within his own party. When the US sold arms to Taiwan, Beijing blamed the US for selling, not Ma for buying, making allowances for him.
During the Lunar New Year break Hu went to Fujian to address Taiwanese businesspeople there, dangling still more carrots. After this, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) made concessions to speed up the ECFA process.
Wouldn’t it be nice if these were offered with no strings attached? Unfortunately, there were two conditions: First, Taiwan was to accept the “one China” principle, and second, China was to get something in return down the road.
For the first condition, Beijing was not actually asking for a written acceptance of the “one China” principle, but more of a tacit agreement — which would have gone on record nonetheless — and a public announcement that Taiwan accepted the principle. Although this would not be a formal agreement, the government would have a difficult time backtracking on it and would end up hoist by its own petard.
For the second condition, Beijing stands to lose precious little, but gain a huge amount. It says there will be a temporary ban on importing Chinese agricultural products in Taiwan, but this means the Taiwanese market will be flooded in the future, putting local farmers at a distinct disadvantage, unless the ECFA includes a clause stating the ban would be in place for 50 years. This is another reason why we need a referendum on the ECFA.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Taiwan’s victory in the World Baseball Softball Confederation Premier12 championship is an historic achievement. Yet once again this achievement is marred by the indignity of the imposed moniker “Chinese Taipei.” The absurdity is compounded by the fact that none of the players are even from Taipei, and some, such as Paiwan catcher Giljegiljaw Kungkuan, are not even ethnically Chinese. The issue garnered attention around the Paris Olympics, yet fell off the agenda as Olympic memories retreated. “Chinese Taipei” persists, and the baseball championship serves as a reminder that fighting “Chinese Taipei” must be a continuous campaign, not merely resurfacing around international
This month, the National Health Insurance (NHI) is to implement a major policy change by eliminating the suspension-and-resumption mechanism for Taiwanese residing abroad. With more than 210,000 Taiwanese living overseas — many with greater financial means than those in Taiwan — this reform, catalyzed by a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling, underscores the importance of fairness, sustainability and shared responsibility in one of the world’s most admired public healthcare systems. Beyond legal obligations, expatriates have a compelling moral duty to contribute, recognizing their stake in a system that embodies the principle of health as a human right. The ruling declared the prior
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) appears to be encountering some culture shock and safety issues at its new fab in Arizona. On Nov. 7, Arizona state authorities cited TSMC for worker safety violations, fining the company US$16,131, after a man died in May. The Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health released its six-month investigation into the fatality and cited TSMC for failing to keep the workplace free from hazards likely to cause death or serious harm. At about the same time, the chip giant was also sued for alleged discriminatory hiring practices favoring Asians, prompting a flurry of debate on whether TSMC’s
US president-elect Donald Trump is inheriting from President Joe Biden a challenging situation for American policy in the Indo-Pacific region, with an expansionist China on the march and threatening to incorporate Taiwan, by force if necessary. US policy choices have become increasingly difficult, in part because Biden’s policy of engagement with China, including investing in personal diplomacy with President Xi Jinping (習近平), has not only yielded little but also allowed the Chinese military to gain a stronger footing in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. In Xi’s Nov. 16 Lima meeting with a diminished Biden, the Chinese strongman signaled little
RSS