President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) clearly heard the warnings issued by Washington and, less subtly, by Beijing prior to his inauguration. Beijing warned Taiwan's leaders that it would "crush their schemes firmly and thoroughly at any cost" if they continued their "dangerous lurch toward independence." Washing-ton advised Chen to take Beijing's threats seriously.
Message received! Chen's May 20 inauguration address was filled with olive branches; it addressed all of Beijing's (and Washington's) major concerns. Despite opposition from his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the even more independence-oriented Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), Chen agreed to "reaffirm the promises and principles set forth in my inaugural speech in 2000," in effect reassuring Beijing that he would not declare independence, change the national title, push for "state-to-state" terminology in the Constitution, promote an independence referendum, or abolish the now-dormant but still symbolic National Reunification Council or Guidelines (the "five noes").
Chen even said that he understood why Beijing "cannot relinquish the insistence on `one China Principle.'" While Beijing's formulation -- "there is only one China in the world and both the mainland and Taiwan belong to that one and same China" -- has been consistently rejected by all major political factions in Taiwan, Chen said that both sides "can seek to establish relations in any form whatsoever."
"We would not exclude any possibility," Chen asserted, "so long as there is consent of the 23 million people of Taiwan."
The speech's positive, cooperative tone, after a bitter election contest that had included a great deal of China-bashing, was a clear signal that Chen understands the difference between campaign rhetoric and the realities of governing in China's massive shadow.
Washington welcomed Chen's remarks: "By making clear his administration's commitment not to take steps that would unilaterally change the status quo, underscoring its openness to seeking accord with Beijing, and reaffirming previous commitments on cross-strait relations, Chen Shui-bian's address creates an opportunity for Taipei and Beijing to restore dialogue across the Strait."
If only this were true. Unfortunately, China's initial response has been deja vu all over again. In its May 17 pre-election warning, Beijing had held out the possibility of "equal-footed consultations," including a willingness to address the issue of "international living space ... commensurate with [Taiwan's] status so as to share the dignity of the Chinese nation."
But rather than seeing Chen's speech as a step in this direction, Beijing announced on May 24 that the inauguration address had shown "no sincerity to improve relations," repeating Beijing's long-standing (unacceptable) demand that Chen "acknowledge that Taiwan and mainland China together both belong to a single country." Rattling a few sabers, China's authoritative Taiwan Affairs Office spokesman Zhang Mingqing (
This uncompromising approach has not worked for the past four years; it is likely to fail again. If there is to be any hope for a breakthrough in cross-strait relations during the next four years, Beijing needs to pursue a more imaginative, flexible, pro-active approach. Its current policies, Chen observed, "drive the hearts of the Taiwanese people further away."
The first thing Beijing should do is drop its continued reference to "one country, two systems." This has always been unacceptable to the people of Taiwan; China's recent heavy-handed cancellation of its pledge to allow greater democracy in Hong Kong makes it even more so.
Instead, it should offer a "one nation, two states; one country, two governments" formula that would put meaning behind its offer of an "equal-footed" approach. Taiwan's leadership would be hard-pressed to reject such an approach, even if some in the DPP or TSU would no doubt strongly object.
There are many other things Beijing could do to draw Chen down the "right" path. It could support Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization (WHO) as a "health entity," a formulation which would offer Taipei some "international living space." Chen has effectively used China's continued blockage of Taiwan's WHO participation against those who support closer cross-strait cooperation. It is unclear why Beijing thinks it is to its advantage to arm the DPP with such an effective weapon.
Speaking of weapons, Beijing should at least freeze and preferably reduce its missile forces opposite Taiwan. In deciding not to sell the AEGIS shipborne missile defense system to Taipei in 2001, the Bush administration indicated that it would reevaluate this decision based on the nature of the threat.
Can anyone imagine President George W. Bush, in an election year, ignoring a new Taiwanese request for better missile defenses? The Democrats would have to wait in line behind Bush's own supporters to criticize another turn-down. A missile reduction is more than a goodwill gesture; it makes strategic sense. The introduction of AEGIS will largely undermine the psychological value of China's missiles or force an even more expensive missile buildup to compensate.
Chen has taken the first step. Some diplomatic gestures by Bei-jing could now play a major role in setting the tone for future cross-strait cooperation, if Beijing has the political courage and foresight to wave olive branches rather than sabers toward Taiwan.
Ralph Cossa is president of the Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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.