Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, on Friday said tensions between Taiwan and China could be resolved by establishing Taiwan as a “special administrative zone” of China, adding that the arrangement should be “more lenient than Hong Kong.”
The proposal has sparked outrage across the political spectrum in Taiwan, with candidates across party lines in next month’s local elections unanimously lodging strong protests.
Taiwan is not alone in its ire, even the Chinese Communist Party failed to see the “beauty” in Musk’s proposal.
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Mao Ning (毛寧) called Musk’s proposal an “inappropriate statement,” saying that “the Taiwan issue is China’s domestic politics” and that China will “resolutely suppress interference by foreign forces.”
State-run China Central Television News also parroted the party line by publishing an article titled “Musk steps out of line in discussing China’s Taiwan issue, foreign ministry responds.”
As the richest person in the world, it is understandable that Musk is only concerned with economic losses in the case of cross-strait conflict, instead of taking into account that the vast majority of Taiwanese reject China’s “one country, two systems” model.
As election season enters fever pitch, Musk’s statement is likely to become material for campaigning and mudslinging.
However, will the political hacks still spare a thought for Taiwan’s future after engaging in empty rhetoric?
On Sept. 7, the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) published an article by Lee Min-yung (李敏勇) that discussed Taiwan’s and China’s opposing stances in terms of diplomacy and politics.
After World War II, Taiwan did not become an independent country like Korea did, but turned into what Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) forces after their retreat from China saw as a Chinese territory.
Lacking wisdom and insight, the administration of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) did not seek to rejoin the UN under the name “Taiwan” after the People’s Republic of China replaced the Republic of China as China’s sole representative. What was a small misstep at the time brought far-reaching consequences. In the rivalry between Taiwan and China, is time on Taiwan’s side now that China has risen to be an economic superpower?
Musk’s proposal reminded Taiwanese that in the event of conflict, the global community would rally behind Taiwan thanks to the inherent economic benefits.
For now, a large part of that is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). If Taiwan happens to lose its trump card — for example, if TSMC moves abroad or is replaced by a rival chipmaker based elsewhere — and the nation has not yet been able to develop other leading industries, it would not be able to keep China at bay just by being in the camp of democracy and freedom.
In face of Chinese intimidation, all Taiwanese are in the same boat, and solidarity is the most effective weapon against an invasion.
Political parties are free to fight with each other for votes with their ideologies and policies, but national identity and security should remain a steadfast principle that cannot be compromised. Just as Lee wrote in his article: Taiwanese political parties should strive to put into practice “Taiwan’s stance,” for this is the responsibility and right of Taiwanese.
Lin Jin-jia is an attending psychiatrist at the Chi Mei Medical Center in Tainan.
Translated by Rita Wang
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