Recently China's Central Military Commission Vice Chairman Zhang Wannian (張萬年) declared that a war in the Taiwan Strait would take place within the next five years. Meanwhile, to break through the ideological deadlock on cross-strait affairs, DPP Chairman Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) urged the ruling party to admit that the "one China" (一個中國) principle is the basis of the Constitution of the ROC. What is the connection between their speeches? I believe we can analyze their words under two different conditions: whether China is rational or irrational.
1. Assume China is rational:
China has repeatedly stressed it will launch a war against Taiwan once the so-called "three ifs"(三個如果) occur -- if Taiwan declares independence; if Taiwan promotes two Chinas; if foreign countries interfere in cross-strait affairs. If China is rational, Beijing won't invade Taiwan since the DPP government is not violating the "three ifs" principle now.
What is China's definition of Taiwan independence? Obviously, Taiwan can be considered independent only when Taiwan officially declares independence. In fact, not even former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) "special state-to-state relations" (兩國論) model under which Taiwan and China are declared to be two different states caused a Taiwan-China confrontation. We therefore know that although the "state-to-state" declaration may have greatly embarrassed China, it has not exceeded the limits of China's "three ifs" principle yet.
Besides, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in his inaugural speech promised that he will not declare independence, push for the inclusion of the "state-to-state" model in the Constitution, or abolish the Guidelines for National Unification (國統綱領). Since Chen's announcement indicates a much softer stance than Lee's "state-to-state" declaration, if China is rational enough, I believe Taiwan's current cross-strait policy is acceptable to Beijing.
Taiwan, however, should further promote Hsieh's idea of admitting the "one China" principle as the basis of the ROC Constitution. China has no reason to oppose this, and Taiwan will lose nothing by supporting it. Hsieh's idea might help Taiwan to re-start negotiations with Beijing. Although this is still a controversial idea inside Hsieh's party, the DPP, it may satisfy Beijing's insistence on the "one China" principle.
2. If China is irrational:
If China is irrational, it could launch a war against Taiwan at any time, which might lead to the international community intervening in cross-strait affairs. Thus, if China tries to invade Taiwan while the island has not violated the "three ifs" principle, I believe the international community will not only intervene, but will also push Taiwan to declare independence. To prevent this, Hsieh's idea, admitting that the "one China" principle is the basis of our Constitution, seems to be a great protective shield to prevent China from launching a war irrationally.
Finally, I would like to borrow the famous Japanese scholar Masahiro Wakabayashi's (若林正丈) words: Taiwan is a split nation (分裂國家), broken up by three divided structures (分裂結構) -- first, the split of Taiwan and China, which has formed a special "state-to-state" relationship between the two sides. Second, Taiwan's internal conflicts between the pro-unification and pro-independence camps. Third, the split government structure caused by the ruling party-opposition divide. For the last two problems, as they are Taiwan's internal problems, all political parties and ethnic groups need to work together to solve them. The solution of the first problem depends on whether China is rational.
Chen Chao-chien is a doctoral candidate of the Department of Political Science at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath