President Chen Shui-bian (
With that statement, Chen has thrown the ball squarely back into China's court. Beijing now has to address the issue of whether it concurs with the so-called "1992 consensus." Chen's words also offer a possible turning point in the current cross-strait deadlock.
However, chances are Hu is unlikely to spawn a political earthquake by commenting on Chen's remarks. For starters, it is clearly stated in the preface of the Chinese Constitution, adopted in December 1982, that "Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People's Republic of China [PRC]."
If Hu were to accept the idea of "one China with each side having its own interpretation," he would risk not only violating the PRC's Constitution but also setting off predictable waves of resistance and criticism from the Chinese Communist Party. Not to mention that he would also be violating Beijing's "Anti-Secession" Law, which explicitly states in its articles that "the Mainland and Taiwan belong to one China and that there is only one China and that the sovereignty of that one China is indivisible."
Time and again Hu has reiterated that the so-called "1992 consensus" refers to its "one China" principle. One ought to remember that when he met former KMT chairman Lien Chan (
While the KMT continues to bury its head in the sand over the "1992 consensus," it is important that President Chen keep his mind clear and lucid.
Chen's challenge to Hu also carries a risk. He should be fully aware how his remark on Monday might put Taiwan in a vulnerable position and allow it to be taken advantage of by China if he fails to handle it wisely.
The president's statement has shaken the nerves of most pan-green supporters and if not explained clearly, Chen and his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) could very well be confronted with dissatisfaction from their supporters.
What if Hu, known for his skill in playing word games, were to accept? How will the DPP administration respond to a possible scenario of "two Chinas" without compromising Taiwan's dignity and status? Worse, it could further lock Taiwan into the position of Beijing's definition of "one China."
Although Chen had carefully phrased his challenge -- the word "respect" is not tantamount to "accept" -- the president should nonetheless be cautious and avoid falling into "united front" traps set by China.
The DPP administration ought to seriously contemplate and draft strategies on what it is prepared to face when China throws the ball back into its court.
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