Local pan-blue commentators have recently been claiming that US efforts to facilitate talks between China and Taiwan have been stymied by Chen Shui-bian's intransigence. All Chen has to do, apparently, is to agree to the 1992 consensus that there is one China, of which Taiwan is a part, but each side is allowed to differ on just how that one China is defined.
It is bizarre, five years after Lee Teng-hui's "one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait" comments, that such views are still aired. Polls done at the time of Lee's remarks showed support for his statement at over 70 percent. Since that the DPP got only 39 percent of the vote in the presidential election the following year, this 70 percent support rate shows the closest thing to a cross-party consensus that Taiwan has to offer.
It is also bizarre, seven years after the Hong Kong handover, that anybody thinks that agreements with China are worth the paper they are written on. China has broken every promise it made to Hong Kong, and there is no reason why it would not do the same with Taiwan.
The "one China" policy the so-called consensus refers to has always had two versions, one for Taiwan, in which "one China" is capable of multiple interpretations, and another version for the international community, in which "one China" means the People's Republic of China. There is no doubt that as soon as Taiwan signed up for the "domestic" version, this would be portrayed by China internationally as agreeing that it was part of the PRC. For any Taiwanese government to consider any concession or agreement on the 1992 consensus would be diplomatic suicide -- though that no doubt is what these pan-blue commentators want Taiwan to commit.
The real problem, as we have said many times before, is China's inability to come to grips with the truth about Taiwan. That truth is that most people here, even among the pan-blues, see Taiwan as a separate country. They have no wish to reunify. Even if Beijing could provide any tempting incentive -- and up to this time it never has -- Hong Kong has shown them that the current government, in fact the current political system in China, can never be trusted.
The best that any reunificationist could hope for is some kind of confederation -- as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan once proposed. And for this to happen, there would have to be trust that Beijing hasn't even thought about building.
The fact is that until Beijing junks the straitjacket of nationalist rhetoric that informs its policy toward Taiwan, and tries to understand how democratic change has put the kind of reunification it seeks beyond its grasp, and then does some constructive thinking about what kind of relationship might be possible with Taiwan to preclude its absolute separation, there is very little reason to talk.
It is hard not to see the US desire to bring the "one China" policy more into line with reality as a way of putting pressure on China to get reasonable about Taiwan. But what does the US want? Obviously to avoid a war in the Taiwan Strait, for which reason it has previously favored the pan-blues, equated with the "status quo," to the independence-minded pan-greens. But another US interest is making sure that reunification never occurs. After the prevention of war, this is the main strategic concern of both the US and Japan. It is also the truth that, in cross-strait affairs, dare not speak its name. The US has to try to ensure peace between Taiwan and China while making sure that Taiwan is left with enough independence from China to suit US strategic needs -- a subtle balancing act indeed.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS