While Taiwan's localization forces expressed discontent over the 10-point consensus reached by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) last month, and have voiced an emphatic protest against Beijing's anti-secession law, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) set forth a four-point guideline for cross-strait relations on March 4.
While explaining the guideline, Hu for the first time directly responded to the 10-point consensus, and for the first time addressed Chen as the leader of the "Taiwan authorities." This was interpreted by the media as a thaw in cross-strait relations. Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Vice Chairman Chiu Tai-san (邱太三) said it could almost be seen as "the first dialogue between Chen and Hu."
It is in the interest of Chinese leaders to respond to the Taiwanese government's movements toward unification and away from independence. But for real dialogue to take place, China should prove that it is reasonable by postponing or calling off the proposed "anti-secession" law, or watering it down to the point where it loses importance, thereby saving Chen from his recent distress. That, however, is very unlikely.
Hu's guidelines are evidence that China's leadership is still stuck in an authoritarian "carrot-and-stick" way of thinking. Why do they think they can set such a rigid conclusion, and then use a carrot-and-stick approach to demand that Taiwan accept it? Let us modify the four-point guideline to highlight its absurdity:
First, never stray from adhering to the "one China, one Taiwan" principle.
Second, never give up efforts to seek peaceful independence.
Third, never change the principle of placing hope in the Chinese people.
Fourth, never compromise in opposing the threat of military unification.
Does anything about this represent meaningful communication? Apart from China being stronger than Taiwan, the above reversal of roles does not make Taiwan's reasons seem any less reasonable. Unfortunately, the stance of Taiwan's leader has been weak and ambiguous, and even unreasonable and a source of trouble. This is also a part of the current Taiwan crisis.
I wonder why China does not tolerate a meaningful opposition party. Why not generate its lawmakers and national leader through competitive elections? In the 21st century, why does it continue to use despotic means to repress dissenters, including Falun Gong practitioners?
Taiwan is not unable to make concessions; rather, it is a question of why it should concede. Conceding to Soong without cause -- as with the 10-point consensus -- in fact amounted to concessions to Beijing. Small wonder Hu reacted positively. But didn't this concession call for further authoritarianism? If the existence of an independent Taiwan is important to China, it should call for freedom and democracy in China, not further authoritarianism.
Politically, economically, socially and culturally, Taiwan has been separated from China for over a half century. This historical separation cannot be resolved by an anti-secession law. Although cross-strait relations have become increasingly close as a result of intensifying economic and trade interactions over the past 10 years, deceit and coercion are still part of despotic rule. It is said that there used to be a thing called "the kingly way of government by justice," but it has not been heard of for a long time.
Chen I-shen is an associate researcher of the Institute of Modern History at Academia Sinica and deputy chairman of the Northern Taiwan Society.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) said on Monday that it would be announcing its mayoral nominees for New Taipei City, Yilan County and Chiayi City on March 11, after which it would begin talks with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) to field joint opposition candidates. The KMT would likely support Deputy Taipei Mayor Lee Shu-chuan (李四川) as its candidate for New Taipei City. The TPP is fielding its chairman, Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), for New Taipei City mayor, after Huang had officially announced his candidacy in December last year. Speaking in a radio program, Huang was asked whether he would join Lee’s
RSS