Before the campaign for the nation's presidential election has even been formally launched, the Chinese government warned Taiwan and the US; although it would have been wise to restrain itself from getting involved in Taiwan's elections so as not to repeat its mistakes from 1996 and 2000 when it campaigned against candidates it disliked. Beijing's leaders seem to lack wisdom and tolerance.
Faced with Taiwan's call for referendum legislation and a new constitution, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (
Wen tried to intensify his intimidation by saying "We completely understand the desire of the Taiwan compatriots for democracy and a peaceful environment. However, when the leadership of the Taiwan authorities wants to separate Taiwan from Chinese territory, no Chinese will agree."
So far, Wen is the highest-ranking Chinese official to declare Beijing's formal stance on Taiwan's referendum legislation. It is generally believed that Wen's upcoming trip to the US, scheduled to begin on Dec. 7, is aimed at urging the US to suppress Taiwan's recent move toward independence.
Since China has never implemented democracy on its soil, Wen's understanding of it is poor. Holding referendums and writing a constitution are only two ways for Taiwanese people to exercise their political rights. They are not necessarily equal to Taiwan independence.
Furthermore, Chinese leaders don't understand what Taiwanese people want. It's China that is pushing Taiwan toward independence. In the history of interaction between the two sides, Taiwanese people have few happy memories. The leadership in Beijing must ask itself: Has China ever offered any effective incentives for promoting unification?
China has long attempted to oppress and suffocate Taiwan's diplomatic activities. The regime never ceases its efforts to intimidate Taiwan either through propaganda or military force. During the epidemic of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Beijing did not cooperate with Taiwan and concealed the reality of the SARS situation in China. When Taiwan needed a helping hand from the World Health Organization, China not only obstructed the process but also said "Who cares about you [Taiwanese]?"
Even in the economic arena, China spares no effort to lower Taiwan's status. To Taiwan's proposal to initiate the small three links, China said no. When Taiwan pushed for direct freight links, China refused to talk. Even those hundreds of thousands of China-based Taiwanese businesspeople, who function as a driving force behind China's bright economic performance, are in the eyes of the Chinese government and people are just cash cows to be milked.
Suppose that a man, upon breaking up with his wife, threatens her by saying "If you divorce me, I'm going to kill you." Most likely, the woman would divorce him and run as far away as she could. The same principle applies to cross-strait relations. If China mistakenly thinks that imposing pressure on the relationship can bring about reunion, the result may turn out to be just the opposite.
China does not need to "pay any price" to prevent Taiwan from moving toward independence. All it needs to do is change its attitudes and respect Taiwan's current status as an independent and sovereign entity. Let Taiwan have freedom. Take away the walls and the missiles across the Strait. Let people freely engage across the Strait and discover each other's merits and their common interests. Then there may be a chance to start the relationship anew.
Let bygones be bygones. After the two sides start to treat each other equally, perhaps they will reunite. Even if they don't, they would know each other well enough that the breakup wouldn't seem too bad.
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