Reportedly, Beijing has extended an invitation to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) to attend a cross-party forum in China. It is widely believed that both Lien and Soong will accept the invitation. If this is true, Beijing is in the process of turning dialogue with the pan-blue opposition leaders into a routine matter. The implications of this for future cross-strait relations need to be closely examined.
One agreement reached between Chinese Communist Party chief and President Hu Jintao (
As with Hu's meetings with Lien and Soong, the significance of such a forum is mostly symbolic: it helps reinforce Beijing's "one China" principle. Just imagine: If representatives from all of China's political parties, including the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its puppet parties, congregate in one room with Lien and Soong among them, wouldn't that present an ideal opportunity for "one China" propaganda? The underlying message obviously would be that political parties in Taiwan are no different from other parties in China.
It should surprise none that President Chen Shui-bian (
The "Chinese" political parties -- including the KMT and PFP -- can chat amongst themselves until their faces turn red. But the forum will remain empty talk, because the KMT and PFP are merely opposition parties in Taiwan. No substantive change in cross-strait relations can come about until Beijing speaks with the duly elected leader of Taiwan -- which happens to be President Chen. Fortunately for Taiwan, Chen isn't ready to sell out Taiwan by embracing the "one China" principle in exchange for photo opportunities and tea with Hu. And that's why Beijing doesn't invite him.
One cannot help but ask the following: If Beijing knows perfectly well that speaking with Taiwan's opposition politicians won't help resolve the immediate problems in cross-strait relations, why bother?
First and foremost, such meetings create an illusion in the international community that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are preparing to bury the hatchet. This will help ease the international pressure that China's has received for its military threats against Taiwan.
There is also the potential for "gradual unification" -- as pointed out by many commentators in Taiwan with increasing alarm. If more and more individuals, politicians and sectors within Taiwan bypass the government and willingly relegate their exchanges and contacts with the other side of the Taiwan Strait to the status of "domestic" or "internal" contacts, de facto unification may one day become a reality.
Finally, there is the issue of the messages conveyed by Taiwan's opposition to Beijing during their visits, which are closely monitored by the international community. They may speak on behalf of the segment of the Taiwanese public which supports unification -- a minority of the population, it should be pointed out. But because the pan-blue leaders' contacts with Beijing are often high profile, their pro-unification stance is amplified, creating the impression that they represent the mainstream view.
Given those dangers, pan-blue politicians should learn to behave in a more responsible manner in their contacts with Beijing.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS