While many other nations have evacuated their citizens from China’s Hubei Province, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak, hundreds of Taiwanese, many of them members of the expatriate business community, remain trapped inside the quarantine zone.
Those who wish to return to Taiwan have become frustrated that the government has not organized additional charter flights to bring them home.
Reports began to surface on Monday that stranded Taiwanese have formed a “self-help group” and have hired a lawyer to assist in bringing a suit against the government for allegedly violating their constitutional rights.
While every sympathy goes out to any Taiwanese who have had to endure more than a month of isolation in what must be incredibly trying circumstances, they are venting their spleens at the wrong government.
The administration of President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) last month chartered an evacuation flight from Wuhan. However, after the flight touched down in Taiwan on Feb. 3, it quickly became apparent that the passenger list, previously agreed by the Chinese government and the Mainland Affairs Council, contained serious anomalies.
The council had asked China to prioritize vulnerable Taiwanese: those on short trips who lacked resources for a long stay, as well as children, the elderly and anyone suffering from chronic diseases, who would be at a higher risk of infection.
As the passengers disembarked, health officials discovered that Taiwanese who should have been given priority had been replaced by the Chinese spouses of Taiwanese or their family members. Three of the passengers were not even on the original list, one of whom was confirmed to have COVID-19 on arrival.
Given the bungling of that flight, it is understandable that the government is wary of agreeing to a second.
Taiwan has, to date, defied expectations by limiting the spread of the coronavirus and preventing community outbreaks. This is in no small part due to the prudence and circumspection of health officials — in particular, their willingness to take difficult and often unpopular decisions to protect the health of the wider public.
Of course, the government has a duty to look after its citizens in need of assistance wherever they are in the world, but the rights of those requesting repatriation must always be balanced against the duty to protect the safety of Taiwanese at home.
The primary reason for the botched flight — and the delay in organizing further flights — is Beijing’s decision to sever direct communication channels with the government following Tsai winning the presidency in 2016. As a result, the organization of evacuation flights had to be carried out at arm’s length through the council.
The Tsai administration has not ruled out arranging another charter flight. Discussions are ongoing with China and the government has said that it is ready to organize a flight if specific criteria are met.
After the self-help group announced its intention to sue the government, Taiwanese lawyer Huang Di-ying (黃帝穎) posted an angry missive on Facebook.
“It was the Chinese government who suppressed evidence of the virus and muzzled whistle-blower doctor Li Wenliang (李文亮), the Chinese government who quarantined entire cities and Chinese officials who placed an infected person onto the evacuation flight,” he wrote. “They have not a single word of criticism for Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), yet they want to sue our government... They are colluding with Beijing to make mischief.”
It is unclear whether the lawsuit is a political act or motivated out of genuine frustration, but we should be clear which side is preventing further evacuation of Taiwanese.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion