Sometimes, in politics, it is better to leave some things unsaid. Once a stance or idea is clearly expressed in words, any room for further negotiation is limited and the path to possible alternatives might be blocked.
The head of the DPP's international affairs department, Tien Hsin (田欣), recently revealed in the US that "The DPP is willing to sacrifice part of Taiwan's sovereignty in exchange for cross-strait peace." Whether or not his remarks were taken out of context, Tien's intention was perhaps to "speak clearly and directly" (說清楚, 講明白) about President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) "integration" dictum (統合論). With such a clear interpretation of the integration dictum having been made, however, Taiwan might lose any room for cross-strait negotiation.
Whoever understands China's perspective of "sovereignty" knows that the Chinese authorities actually adopt a view of "absolute sovereignty"
The Western relative sovereignty, on the other hand, exists between nations for the purpose of co-operation. Although each participant needs to sacrifice part of its sovereignty in order to facilitate co-operation, it still keeps its status as a nation. Both the EU and the British Commonwealth, for example, have operated within such a structure of integration.
Today, the greater problem is that Beijing not only takes the national sovereignty issue as a symbol of its legitimacy, but also as a tool to promote anti-colonialism and anti-hegemonism, as well as a means to reach an internal consensus. As a result, if national sovereignty is divided into parts, the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) rule will lack legitimacy, and the Chinese people might even launch a revolution to end it.
So if Taiwan wishes to start talks with China on the issue of integration, first of all, the prerequisite for the talks is that China should admit that Taiwan is indeed a nation, and not Taiwan's willingness to sacrifice part of its sovereignty.
Next, China should change its ideology regarding anti-colonialism and anti-hegemonism, and stop viewing the US and European countries as if they were the Western empires of the 19th Century.
Of course, under the current circumstances, it is very difficult for Beijing to take the two steps outlined above. Consequently, if Taiwan proposes to sacrifice part of its sovereignty in exchange for cross-strait peace, the island will fall into the "one China" trap, having used its trump card without securing peace. Thus, "the Buddha said: Don't tell!"
If we keep the "integration" dictum vague, the island might secure a better tomorrow.
Wang Kun-yi is a senior journalist.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS