The CORE OF president-elect Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) foreign policy strategy is his so-called “flexible diplomacy.” He first used the concept in a speech at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore in 2006, where he said the nation’s new path meant a return to the so-called “1992 consensus,” the signing of a 30 to 50-year peace treaty with China and the development of a flexible approach to facilitate participation at international bodies.
But Ma’s “new” strategy is not at all new. The communique signed by former Chinese Nationalist Party chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) in the wake of Beijing passing its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005 and Hu’s report to the 17th Chinese Communist Party National Congress include similar suggestions. Ma just slapped a new label on it.
And following Ma’s election victory, Beijing gave its opinion. In a phone conversation with US President George W. Bush last month, Hu reportedly said, “it is China’s consistent stand that the Chinese Mainland and Taiwan should restore consultation and talks on the basis of the 1992 consensus.”
In its English news release, China’s Xinhua news agency explained the “consensus” as meaning that “both sides recognize there is only one China, but agree to differ on its definition.”
Quite a few people are overjoyed about this. But can Ma really hope to find the foundation for favorable and flexible diplomatic relations based on a single telephone conversation? This is closely linked to how the nation’s status is perceived by the international community: Is the nation one of the new democracies that emerged from the third wave of democratization, or a province of China?
It is incontestable that Taiwan is a modern constitutional state that completed its transformation to democracy in the 1990s. Since the first presidential election in 1996, the New York-based Freedom House has ranked it as a free nation alongside such countries as the US, the UK and France in its annual freedom survey.
In his address to the APEC summit last year, Bush mentioned that “the expansion of freedom and democracy in the Asia-Pacific region is one of the great stories of our time” and highlighted the democratic transitions in Taiwan and South Korea.
The US Foreign Relations Authorization Act also clearly designates Taiwan a “major non-NATO ally.”
This is how Taiwan is perceived by the world. The most dangerous move for Ma would be to disregard the fact that the nation has emerged as a liberal, democratic and independent state and instead recognize the fictitious “1992 consensus.”
Whether it be “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” or “one China without any express interpretation,” there is no flexibility, but only a dead end.
Ma has said that “China” can refer to the “Republic of China” (ROC) as long as neither side denies this. The problem is that after UN Resolution 2758; then US president Jimmy Carter’s termination of diplomatic relations with Taiwan; and the canceling of the 1954 mutual defense treaty and withdrawal of US troops from Taiwan, the ROC has been replaced by the People’s Republic of China in the eyes of the world.
Where does that leave the ROC? Taiwan’s foreign policy strategies belong firmly on the side of liberal democracy. The nation should interact with China based on a foundation of independence, self determination, equality and mutual benefit, while remaining vigilant at all times to not be led down the “one-China” dead end.
Ruan Ming is a consultant at the Taiwan Research Institute.
Translated by Ted Yang
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS