In the complicated world of politics, it is pathetic for a government to act as though it is unaware of hostile schemes, but downright despicable if it is well aware of an adversary’s scheming yet chooses to look the other way. In view of the latest developments concerning the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China, one can’t help but wonder if the latter scenario is the direction in which the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government is heading.
On Sunday at a roundtable meeting held on the sidelines of the Boao Forum for Asia, Chinese delegates called for the signing of an ECFA, stressing how both sides of the Taiwan Strait could benefit from the pact. Several delegates also said the ECFA could help “speed up the goal of a unified motherland.”
A day earlier, Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping (習近平) also expressed support for an ECFA during a meeting with the head of the Taiwanese delegation, Fredrick Chien (錢復). Saying that “one China” is the “cornerstone for the development of peaceful cross-strait relations,” Xi was quoted by the media as saying that “compatriots from both sides of the Strait are members of the Chinese nation (中華民族) and that cross-strait economics are part of the Chinese economy (中華民族經濟).” He added that strengthened economic cooperation from both sides was “helpful in jointly promoting prosperous national economic development and safeguarding and broadening the overall interests of the Chinese nation.”
Wang Yi (王毅), director of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, told a press conference later that same day that “the foundation of cross-strait economic cooperation comes from closeness of blood, the shared sentiments of compatriots and love of the nation … which exceeds the usual business partnerships and simple exchange of business interests.”
While some may be quick to dismiss these remarks as the usual rhetoric of Chinese officials, what those people are doing is simply turning a blind eye to the obvious. The truth is, all these statements from the Chinese officials, spoken against the backdrop of the proposed ECFA, show that politics is written all over the so-called cross-strait trade pact.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶), speaking at the National People’s Congress earlier last month, also issued a call for the completion of an ECFA. Wen said the Chinese government would continue developing cross-strait relations to realize the ultimate goal of peaceful national unification and that striking an ECFA with Taiwan was a priority.
Judging from these remarks, it is obvious that the true purpose behind Beijing’s support for an ECFA is to help realize its goal of “taking back” Taiwan.
Their remarks also debunked claims by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration that an ECFA has nothing to do with politics.
Time and again, Ma has stated that a referendum is unnecessary because the proposed ECFA is an economic matter that is related to neither politics nor sovereignty.
It is shocking that ordinary people can see China’s cunning intent behind its support for an ECFA, yet the Ma administration still fails to connect the dots and insists otherwise. Or could it be that the government simply chooses to play dumb?
If the Ma government is too dumb to figure out China’s devious scheme, that would be all the more reason for a referendum on an ECFA to let the people speak for themselves.
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
RSS