The government is billing President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) visit to Africa and the stopover he made in Mumbai, India, as the consequence of its much touted “flexible diplomacy.” The stopover was the first time a president of the Republic of China (ROC) stepped foot on Indian territory, and it owes much to the hard work and achievements of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India. The problem is that the event was spoiled by the way the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Presidential Office chose to handle it.
Diplomats and foreign affairs officials enjoy a certain amount of leeway in terms of the accuracy of information they give on certain occasions, allowing them to provide misinformation if it is believed to be in the national interest. However, there are limits to how this privilege is applied, and discretion is advised. Both the ministry and the Presidential Office need to be aware that providing misinformation, while forgivable, comes at the risk of damaging the government’s credibility, and must be avoided where possible.
The information given during the press conference in which the “goodwill” trip was announced was that Ma’s plane would make a stop in Dubai to refuel. The press was not informed of the change of plans until the plane was in the air. It brings to mind the farcical confusion surrounding former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) trip in 2006 when he, indignant at having been refused permission to make a stopover in Hawaii, instructed the plane to head west without any clear destination, eventually making transit stops in Abu Dhabi and Amsterdam en route to Paraguay and Costa Rica.
Conscious of the possibility of unwelcome comparisons, the Presidential Office was at pains to say that plans for the Mumbai stopover were actually made two weeks prior, and kept quiet both to avoid any interference from China and out of respect to the Indian authorities. This was only a short two-hour refueling stop and Ma and his entourage were looked after by local-level protocol officers — there were no meetings with government officials or public events. Of course, the government is not obliged to reveal every last detail, but neither was there any need to damage the government’s credibility by providing misinformation to the press and public.
It did so out of fear of intervention by Beijing. Ever since Ma took office in 2008 and his government began promoting its policy of a “diplomatic truce,” China has continued to pressure Taiwan in its international activities. In every corner, you find China squeezing Taiwan’s options.
The so-called diplomatic truce between China and Taiwan, as well as the truce over affairs concerning overseas nationals, that Ma introduced in an effort to ease relations between the two countries has been rather one-sided. China has demonstrated on many occasions that it does not see the need to observe the terms of the truce itself. Beijing has been rather unresponsive to Ma’s requests for a bit of slack in foreign relations.
The Ma administration’s strategy has been to give cross-strait relations precedence over relations with any other country. China’s Taiwan Affairs Office has been making generous concessions to Taiwan, playing the role of “good cop” to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ “bad cop.” The latter has been giving Taiwan a hard time on the international stage.
That the government felt the need to resort to covert tactics over fears of China, even over the purely technical issue of having to refuel in Mumbai, speaks volumes about the true state of cross-strait relations. It was a small fib that revealed that the government’s diplomatic truce, where China is concerned, is nothing but a huge lie.
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