No matter how significant it might appear in the international media, the meeting between New Taipei City Mayor and KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in China tomorrow is a meeting of the past.
The cross-strait bubble burst more than a year ago with the Sunflower movement’s occupation of the Legislative Yuan’s main chamber, and any attempts to go back to the good old days are destined to fail due to a new reality.
In the new reality, Taiwanese want politicians who consider problems in the streets and homes across the nation as their genuine concern and top priority. This new reality is slowly spreading in Europe. However, right up to point when the cross-strait bubble burst, many politicians and journalists in Europe thought that relations between Taiwan and China were better than ever and publicly praised past trade agreements as a prerequisite for peace, prosperity and mutual understanding. However, they were living in a fantasy world.
Previous political debates about cross-strait relations can be compared to overheated financial markets. As Danish philosopher Vincent Henricks highlighted, political positions can get overheated as well. When the cross-strait debate was overheated, its proponents were not willing to listen to other standpoints.
In such an environment, increased inequality, youth unemployment, demolition of housing, the fight for media freedom and the worrisome democratic development in Taiwan were to a large extent neglected and considered as small ripples across the water that would soon fade.
Except for capital punishment, the EU has not criticized Taiwan regarding democratic issues. Despite various critiques of the impact of cross-strait agreements, many European parliamentarians continued to praise the cross-strait development, as did the European media.
Even in June last year, a few weeks after the occupation of the Legislative Yuan’s main chamber, European External Action Service praised dynamic cross-strait relations.
It was clear during the trip of two of the principal leaders of the Sunflower movement, Dennis Wei (魏揚) and Wu Cheng (吳崢), and I to London and Brussels in November last year that the attitude had changed. We experienced a genuine interest in understanding what has happened in Taiwan, in the same way people wanted to understand the reasons behind the burst financial bubble.
However, it was also clear that some would like go back to business as usual, as we have observed in the financial sector.
To avoid the creation of political bubbles, politicians and journalists need to expose themselves to broader spectra of knowledge by, for instance, listening to opposition parties and civil societies in Europe and Taiwan. Knowledge is important, but it can mislead if a nuanced view is not taken.
It would be convenient to create a new cross-strait bubble based on selected information and try to neglect the new reality.
Fortunately, this is not possible because Taiwan has changed, and the political scene and debates are more vibrant than ever. In the new reality, Taiwan will continue to be peaceful and constructive in the way it engages with China and the rest of the international community. It will focus on making Taiwan an even better place.
The cross-strait bubble failed to create sustainable development between Taiwan and China. Sustainable development is only possible when policies protect the interest of Taiwanese. Consequently, the next bubble to burst is the “one China” policy.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS