Earlier this month, the annual APEC summit took place in Bali, Indonesia, closely followed by the ASEAN summit in Brunei. These meetings were attended by member nations’ highest level representatives, and were a good opportunity for leaders to exchange views on the important issues of the day.
This year, the US’ presence took a nosedive when US President Barack Obama was unable to attend due to the US government shutdown fight with US Congress. This is regrettable, as Obama had promised that the US would be “back in Asia.”
Now it remains to be seen if these circumstances, together with the “sequestration” budget cuts, do not force his rebalancing to Asia to run out of steam.
However, the main issue I would like to focus on here is how Taiwan fared in Bali. It is not a member of ASEAN, so there were no representatives present in Brunei, but Taiwan is a member of APEC, so it did have representatives in Bali.
However, at the heads of state meeting, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was nowhere to be seen: For years, China’s objection has forced Taiwan to send a lower level of representation. This year the nation was represented by former vice president Vincent Siew (蕭萬長).
No doubt Siew is an able economist, but the fact remains that Taiwan, and APEC, are allowing themselves to be forced by a dictate from one member state. So, there certainly is an element of unfairness in Taiwan’s lack of participation at the appropriate level.
Some in Taiwan were pleased with the fact that Siew met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and exchanged views on cross-strait relations. While it is much more preferable to have such talks than to have hostilities, it is important that such talks are based on equality, equity and mutual respect.
That is where things become muddy: Does Xi consider Siew an equal? Not likely. From his perspective he is talking to a representative from a local government. Does Xi have respect for Taiwan as a free and democratic nation? Not really: In fact, just this summer he issued “Document No. 9,” in which he said that things like “Western constitutional democracy” should be eradicated.
So, how should we interpret Xi’s statement in Bali that “the longstanding political division between the two sides ... should not be passed on generation after generation.”
He added that he was willing “to engage in reciprocal negotiations on bilateral political issues with Taiwan under the ‘one China’ framework.”
This may sound nice and conciliatory enough to the untrained ear of a casual bystander, but it has all the characteristics of an ultimatum, belying arguments that China is showing patience and is “in no hurry.”
The problem is that Xi insists on his “one China” framework, which limits Taiwan’s options to forge its own future as a free and democratic nation. So, was the close encounter in Bali a step in the right direction for Taiwan?
Nat Bellocchi served as chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan from 1990 to 1995. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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