Vaccine Politics versus "Same Island, One Fate"
By Chao Chien-min
United Daily News, May 30, 2021
As the administration of President Tsai Ing-wen was preparing to celebrate the first anniversary of her second term, the recent wave of coronavirus (COVID-19) infections broke out in Taiwan, once acclaimed for being a role model in epidemic prevention. The public in Taiwan criticized the Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC) for its failure to acquire sufficient vaccine doses while prohibiting private organizations from purchasing. The Tsai administration’s pinpointing China’s “cognitive war” and politicizing mainland vaccines have exposed the ruling party’s confusion over its cross-strait policy.
I originally thought that manipulating the anti-China sentiment was a carefully crafted instrument by the Tsai administration in order to win elections. In the aftermath of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) local election defeat at the end of 2018, Tsai, in an abrupt move, equated the “One Country, Two Systems” formula with the “1992 Consensus” and then took advantage of the turmoil in Hong Kong to propagate a sense of national doom. She succeeded, with the side help of its cyber forces, at the end of the day, reversed the momentum and set a classic win in the election.
Recently, the ruling party wantonly played up the issue of cognitive warfare. High-ranking officials openly declared that China is trying to disintegrate Taiwan by using the pandemic issue, the DPP’s cyber forces wallowed in the mire immediately, trying to help expand the political benefits. Unexpectedly, it was later exposed that the so-called cognitive warfare was launched by writers supporting the ruling party.
However, the Tsai administration’s stance on mainland Chinese vaccines has subverted the perception of DPP’s staunching stand against China in order to win elections. From the very beginning, the ruling party vowed to never purchase mainland Chinese vaccines. Minister of Health and Welfare Chen Shih-Chung cited the law and said that mainland Chinese vaccines could not be procured, and the mainland vaccine “lacks technical information.” When the pandemic is easing and the demand for vaccine doses is not high, people may accept the excuses that the mainland’s vaccines are not good enough. However, when the pandemic is gradually out of control and the people are no longer satisfied with the current policies towards the mainland, the tactics to voice anti-China statements to save the political power are cracking. What laws or regulations prohibit the procurement of foreign vaccine doses via agents in China? The CECC has not yet given the public a clear answer.
The Tsai administration not only brewed excuses not to procure vaccines from the mainland but also tried every means to lay blame on China for the shortage of vaccines in Taiwan. In the beginning of the year, the government negotiated directly with a German manufacturer for 5 million doses of BioNTech vaccines, but the deal stymied at the last minute. Minister Chen indicated on February 17 that “it was caused by outside factors.” President Tsai said bluntly yesterday on her Facebook that “Taiwan was close to sealing the deal with the German plant, but because of China’s intervention, we still can’t sign the contract.”
The reason that Taiwan’s procuring German vaccines changed has now become Rashomon. It was last August that Taiwan started to negotiate with Pfizer for BioNTech vaccines, but as early as in March last year, Fosun Pharma, which is based in Shanghai, had begun to represent the BioNTech vaccine in the Greater China region. According to Terry Gou, founder of Foxconn, the Ministry of Health and Welfare began to contact Fosun Pharma in January this year for 5 million doses of vaccines, with the help of Legislator Ker Chien-ming, the DPP’s whip in the Legislative Yuan. It seemed to testify that the German company had authorized Fosun Pharma to strike a deal with Taiwan, and Taiwan officials were involved in the process. Weirdly though, Gou emphasized repeatedly that the deal is a simple business, but the Tsai administration lays the blame on China for its obstruction.
From the perspective of elections, it would be more reasonable for the DPP if the Tsai administration insists that the BioNTech vaccine that Fosun Pharma represents is a German vaccine and agrees to import it, downplaying or not mentioning Fosun Pharma at all. However, the Tsai administration didn’t draw the line. It instead argues that the BioNtech vaccine is a Chinese vaccine and rejects its importation. It suffices to prove that the decoupling with China policy is no longer a simple election banner, but indicates a deeper ideological enmity.
In face of China, the Tsai administration continues to politicize pandemic prevention, disregarding its own slogan of "same island, one fate." This highlights two tenets of Taiwan’s current cross-strait policy: One thinking emphasizes the particularity of cross-strait relations, and there may be political reasons to oppose China, but issues of people’s livelihood should not be compromised. In other words, the economics should be separated from the politics. Another kind of thinking regarding China is that it is some kind of a plague, with which Taiwan must server contact, resist, and hate.
The issue of vaccines has ignited a debate on Taiwan’s China policy. It may be a windfall, however unfortunate.
(The author is dean of the College of Social Sciences, Chinese Culture University.)