As expected, China's Taiwan Affairs Office severely attacked President Chen Shui-bian's (
Chen stressed in his speech that the two sides can "use the basis of the 1992 meeting in Hong Kong" to push for cross-strait talks. As he said, "In the future, Taiwan and China can seek to establish political relations in any form whatsoever. We would not exclude any possibility, so long as there is the consent of the 23 million people of Taiwan." By placing Taiwan and China side by side like this, it means that they are two equal sovereignties with a special relationship.
Basically, Chen's speech is a continuation of former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) "special state-to-state relations" dictum. Beijing therefore criticized that he has "obstinately adhered to his separatist stance on `one country on each side' of the Taiwan Strait." In fact, if the possibility of independence is not excluded by Taiwan, any sweet talk from Taiwan's top leaders will hardly be accepted by the other side, which insists on the "one China" principle.
Although Chen failed to receive any goodwill from communist China in return, his discourse serves as a benchmark to the integration of disputes between the pro-unification and pro-independence camps in Taiwan. By showing maximum flexibility on the two countries' future political relations, he has covered other options -- not only independence, but also commonwealth, confederation, federation or even unification within a "one China" framework. This in fact represents most opinions of the Taiwanese people, proving that the president has already broken through the siege of the pro-independence dogmatists, and has returned to the relatively pragmatic "middle way" today.
According to the theory of philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the goal of such political integration is to consolidate people's "general will," or the collective will of a community that is the embodiment of its common interest. Thus, we must abandon the old ideology of "unification versus independence" or "loving Taiwan versus loving China."
We then have to analyze the cross-strait policies of each party, group, and individual to reach a shared consensus. Finally, we can shape the consensus as the public's general will to back the government during future talks.
Relations between Taiwan and China are much more complex than those between North and South Korea or East and West Germany. So it is more important for us to shape a general will. Chen mentioned in his speech that he plans to invite leaders from all political parties to establish a committee for cross-strait peace and development after the December legislative elections.
This is the correct direction, and the timing is also good. Lawmakers will have more legitimacy by that time. And people's election passions will have calmed down, which is conducive to rational dialogue. I suggest that the committee base its operation on the public's consensus, and replace conflicts by integration and negotiation in order to consolidate the public's general will.
For Taiwan, it is urgent to reach a consensus. As for China, I hereby call on its government to realize that, in light of the mature development of Taiwan's democratic politics, it cannot exclude any option for future cross-strait relations, even if the option is only supported by 1 percent or 2 percent of its people.
Beijing can certainly try to convince the Taiwanese people not to accept a specific option such as Taiwan's independence. But it cannot deny everything simply because that specific option still exists.
Shen Fu-hsiung is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers