In Washington, among those who are involved in the three-sided cross-strait relations, there is seldom -- if ever -- a consensus on what is best for US interests. Despite occasional reports by the executive branch to the US Congress and the public, even the appearance of consensus never exists for very long, due to the increasing complexity of cross-strait relations.
Starting with last year's presidential election in Taiwan, which reinforced the ruling party, and then the legislative elections which deflated it, many experts in the US went from being deeply concerned about where Taiwan was going (provoking China) to being concerned about where it wasn't going (strengthening its security).
In Washington that is the classic division of consensus -- worry about China or worry about security.
This year Beijing changed the atmosphere when it sought domestic approval for its "Anti-Secession" Law. While the pan-green camp had been the "troublemaker" last year, China now had become the troublemaker and Taiwan the reasonable player. Taiwan's government did an unusually good public relations effort gaining wide support internationally and at home for condemning that law.
There was little time before yet another cross-strait related action emerged. This time it was a domestic issue in Taiwan which was carried to China. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and then other opposition parties' leaders began a series of visits to China. They received an unusually high level of attention in China, including presidential meetings, and were allowed a high level of media attention as well.
Agreements were made for future party liaison with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and in receiving offers to increase trade and other favorable actions, but not through Taiwan's government.
Since there are no laws prohibiting such behavior by political parties, the government and the ruling party were clearly unsure of itself, and the body politic of Taiwan seemed to be in complete confusion.
The results of the election for the National Assembly went to the ruling party, which helped calm the confusion somewhat. What that meant politically, however, remained unclear for two reasons.
The liaison and the commitments made between opposition parties and the CCP could not only undermine the ruling party, which has been the opposition's first priority, at any cost, since the year 2000, but could also permit more intrusive actions by China in Taiwan's internal affairs.
During the visits of the opposition leaders to China, the newly established liaison between the CCP and the KMT included an agreement to establish a line of communications. At the same time, the Chinese hosts made no changes to their fundamental requirements -- the "one China" principle, the absolute power of Beijing, or its ongoing military threat, for example.
Beijing is not likely to do so. It may well be positioning its efforts to be sure the present administration in Taipei fails, and that the next election delivers a much friendlier administration, more accommodating to Beijing's objectives. If that materializes, conceivably the US and China could become involved much more deeply than before in Taiwan's domestic affairs, but for different reasons.
The other reason for hesitation following the National Assembly's actions was that a very high profile, first time election was soon to be held within the KMT to choose a new chairman.
With many critical laws stalled in the legislative by the pan-blue parties, what direction the results of this election would take was important. Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
This was well received regardless of partisan membership, though it covers support for anti independence and acceptance of a "one China" policy which may be unacceptable to many if not a majority of voters.
Within the party, in addition, there are limits among the long standing elites about just what reforms would be acceptable, but in any event regaining power will be the top priority.
It may take some time before it is clear just how great an impact this "Visit China Strategy," the results of the National Assembly election and the change in the KMT chairmanship will have on the body politic of Taiwan.
Between now and the next presidential election in 2008, there will be a county-city election, a redistricting of constituencies to accommodate the smaller 133-member legislature, an election for the new legislature in 2007 and new faces campaigning for the presidency thereafter.
There seems now a perception among many that the results of the last legislative election, and more recently several statements by some analysts in Taiwan and abroad that independence is no longer a viable option and should be dropped, has caused mainstream of public opinion to shift in that direction.
That an option, no matter how viable, should be dropped before any negotiations take place is surprising.
The ruling party has not been very effective in challenging these views, however. In the struggle between the two political groups -- pan-green and pan-blue -- during the events that lay ahead of the next presidential election, how much further along real consensus on the cross-strait issue will be remains uncertain. It will almost surely mean that China's involvement in Taiwan's domestic affairs will become even more intrusive, however, something both the US and Taiwan must ponder.
In the East Asia region, changes that impact on fundamental national interests of several countries, including Washington, Beijing, and Tokyo, are likely to continue, adding to the uncertainty.
In Washington, seeking consensus on US policy for this volatile region, including the cross-strait issue, will make policy decisions even less predictable than today.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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