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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS