The Taipei City Council on Monday decided to freeze the NT$1.3 million (US$46,716) budget for the annual forum between Taipei and Shanghai if Chinese military aircraft and ships continue to patrol near Taiwan. The city council should be commended for defying Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), as the forum should not be held.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does not allow politicians to hold events that are not in line with party objectives, and the forum is no exception. It is intended to push China’s unification agenda — which most Taiwanese oppose — and the use of public funds for Ko to attend such an event is inappropriate. Arguably, he should not be allowed to visit China — an antagonistic enemy state — at all.
That Taipei City Councilor Pan Hwai-tzong (潘懷宗), convener of the pro-China New Party, agreed that the forum should not be held amid poor cross-strait relations shows how much aversion toward the CCP exists in Taiwan. Ko, as chairman of the Taiwan People’s Party, a prominent third-force political party, should not entertain the idea of interacting with CCP officials amid such hostilities.
Ill intentions might not motivate Ko to attend the forum, but he is overly idealistic about what the event can achieve for Taiwan. He has said on numerous occasions that the “two sides of the Taiwan Strait are one family.” It is unclear what Ko means — whether he is implying that there are many Taiwanese with relatives in China or that Taiwanese and Chinese share cultural values — but the remarks have been problematic for the mayor.
Asked by reporters in 2019 to explain the statements, Ko said that “it is an expression of attitude, meaning ‘we will be friendly to your people, but we want you to be friendly to Taiwanese in return.’”
How that is different from what Taiwan would expect from relations with any country is unclear.
Last month, Ko said that the goal of the forum is to jointly build the “Chinese dream,” as “the two sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one family” and “people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese of the same race and speak the same language,” a Central News Agency report said.
Perhaps Ko should consider what Hong Kongers think of the “Chinese dream.” Does he believe Singapore should discuss unification with China, since both countries “speak the same language” and have majority populations “of the same race”? What of Canada, the UK and the US? No such combination of countries considers unification, despite sharing a common history, culture and values. What would Taiwan’s indigenous peoples have to say about the “Chinese dream”?
Ironically, Ko in January 2020 criticized China for terminating Shanghai’s sister city status with Prague, saying that China should not attempt to decide what friendly relationships Prague pursues. Ko seemingly failed to realize that Chinese pressure on Prague was designed to pressure Taiwan, to decide who Taiwan can be friends with. Is that how “family” treat each other?
China represents a legitimate threat to Taiwan, and not just militarily. In March last year, Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Kuo Kuo-wen (郭國文) raised concern after Taiwanese junior-high school students were recognized by the Pingtan County Government in China’s Fujian Province for essays they wrote about “compatriot love.” The same county last month hosted youth events in a renewed bid to influence Taiwanese.
Chinese interactions with Taiwanese are held for the clear purpose of furthering the CCP’s “united front” objectives. The sooner Ko realizes this, the better.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent