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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS