Chinese National Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) obtained more than 7 million votes in the presidential election, scoring a big win over Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷). Having fallen short by 2 million votes, the DPP was, without a doubt, a big loser. Nevertheless, it will soon become clear the biggest winner was the US.
Recently there has been a high level of activity from the White House and State Department. US President George W. Bush immediately sent a congratulatory note to Ma upon his victory. The White House also released, through the State Department, the contents of a telephone conversation between Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) in which the term “1992 consensus” was used in their discussions about Taiwan.
In their conversation, the concensus was defined as room for different interpretations of “one China,” echoing the wording of the KMT’s phrase “one China with each side having its own interpretation.” At the same time, the White House announced that it was considering the possibility of Ma visiting the US before his inauguration and sent American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond Burghardt to Taipei for some more shuttle diplomacy.
These carefully timed actions look like what transpired in 2000 when president-elect Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was preparing his “four noes and one not” speech before assuming office. The difference is that in 2000 the concern was over suppressing the DPP’s pro-independence leanings by providing assurances to the US to mollify an anxious Beijing.
This time around the approach has been completely different. Through the Bush-Hu conversation, the US indirectly endorsed the KMT’s position of “one China with each side having its own interpretation,” using the so-called “1992 consensus” to combine Beijing’s “one China” principle, the US’ “one China” policy and the KMT’s interpretation into an amorphous “one China consensus.”
The one area in which they all overlap is the belief that Taiwan is a part of China.
The KMT and the Chinese Communist Party have different ideas about what China is. The US recognizes the commonalities and differences in their positions and wants to arrive at the eventual solution through peaceful means. The disagreement is not over one China, but rather the mutual denial of the other side’s interpretation.
In light of all this, the DPP’s defeat was not just the electoral setback of a politician or a party. It also signifies that Taiwanese independence will not be an item on a future cross-strait agenda. The US, China and the KMT have schemed together to exclude any discussion of Taiwan’s de jure independence from this cross-strait one China structure.
Even though the DPP has asked to be included in future cross-strait negotiations and Chen again questioned the existence of a “1992 consensus” in his meeting with Burghardt, these were feeble attempts at protest. There is no way to stop the formation of a long-term stable “one China” structure within the US-China-Taiwan dynamic. A new power structure has already pushed out the DPP and independence advocates.
A democratic Taiwan that does not pursue de jure independence is probably the most in line with US interests.
Democracy can be used to enclose China. It also keeps Taiwan from being swallowed by China. Moreover, a Taiwan that does not pursue de jure independence will not interfere in Sino-American relations. There would no longer be any need to handle situations arising from Taiwan’s independence-pursuing tendencies.
This kind of Taiwan would no longer be a troublemaker in Washington’s eyes. Moreover, it would be an important pillar of a stable and peaceful framework concocted by the US and Beijing.
Not surprisingly, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), an old hand in these matters, was able to see how the intimate interactions between Ma and the US would bring Taiwan back to the era of late president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) and relegate it to the role of a dependant regime.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant professor of political science at Soochow University.
TRANSLATED BY JAMES CHEN
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
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.
RSS