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
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto says he knows how to fix the problems facing Indonesia. Yet his economic mismanagement and authoritarian tendencies are steering the nation toward a familiar mix of currency instability and political chaos. The world’s fourth-most populous nation risks reversing the hard-won democratic and business reforms that came after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. At that time, the rupiah collapsed and the political upheaval that followed forced former president Haji Mohamed Suharto from power. Prabowo’s administration is ignoring similar warning signs. That disconnect was apparent in a national address on Wednesday, when Prabowo projected the swagger that has
RSS