In an interview with the Singaporean daily the Straits Times a few days ago, Li Jiaquan (李家泉), former head of the Taiwan Research Institute at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, revealed that Beijing may accept as fact that Taiwan is an individual entity. In other words, Beijing would accept as fact that Taiwan is the Republic of China. After the interview was published, however, Li rushed to deny it, saying that not a single word in the article had come from him.
Such a flat denial makes it clear that political factors are at work, and that it is not a matter of "misunderstanding" by the reporter. This shows that Beijing is trying a new way of thinking about solving problems in the cross-strait relationship. Maybe this new thinking is not yet mature, maybe it is already complete, but more probably, Beijing still hasn't decided when -- ie, the most opportune time for Beijing -- to announce this new thinking.
Five years ago, when the chairman of China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, Wang Daohan (
China's main reason for denying these reports is that it does not want its bottom line to become public knowledge and use it as a bargaining chip during negotiations. Giving things away too early means not holding the upper hand in negotiations. Thus, when Li denied his statements, he wasn't denying the existence of the new thinking. Rather, it meant the announcement came at the wrong time and was made by the wrong person.
In the current situation, the PRC is doing all it can to protect the ROC. This is a funny situation because the PRC has always believed that the ROC ceased to exist a long time ago. The white paper "The One China-Principle and the Taiwan Issue" issued in February 2000 by China's Taiwan Affairs Office stated that, "On October 1, 1949, the Central People's Government of the PRC was proclaimed, replacing the government of the Republic of China to become the only legal government of the whole of China and its sole legal representative in the international arena, thereby bringing the historical status of the Republic of China to an end."
But now China hopes that the Republic of China will maintain its national title -- ie, perpetuate its historical status. The determination to maintain the ROC is as strong as the determination to terminate it.
On Nov. 19 last year, the director of research at China's Academy of Military Sciences, Luo Yuan (
Isn't it the same thing as selling out the country when even PRC generals want the ROC to include the PRC?
When Li denied his statements, he also said that "the ROC includes China, and we are happy to let you include it," and he also said that "although an ROC that maintains the status quo by not changing national flag, national anthem, national title and national territory in a future constitutional amendment by [President] Chen Shui-bian (
The actual situation is a little bit of refusal of the ROC, a little bit of acceptance. For example, the PRC doesn't only accept the ROC on the ROC currency, it welcomes it. If it didn't, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) wouldn't have received Taiwanese businessmen last year, nor would he have visited Taiwanese businesses when he recently went on an inspection tour of Kunshan.
The information revealed by Li means that though the PRC in the past never recognized "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan," the "two China" principle is now loosening up. This is something that Taiwan has to recognize, Whether the "one China, one Taiwan" principle will loosen up depends on the efforts of Taiwan, the attitudes of the US and pressure from the international community. Taiwan's efforts have already had an effect -- China did not want to accept the ROC's Guidelines for National Unification in 1991, but following Taiwan's power transfer in 2000, they regretted not having done so.
China also refused to accept the "one China, with each side having its own interpretation" model in 1992, but now they are only too anxious for Taiwan to accept it. This is evidence that the PRC is a rogue nation that bullies the weak and fears the strong. Taiwan must not provoke China, but if it persists in the principle of sovereignty and moves toward the international community, it will not only be rock steady, it will also continue to develop.
Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS