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
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
Workers’ rights groups on July 17 called on the Ministry of Labor to protect migrant fishers, days after CNN reported what it described as a “pattern of abuse” in Taiwan’s distant-water fishing industry. The report detailed the harrowing account of Indonesian migrant fisher Silwanus Tangkotta, who crushed his fingers in a metal door last year while aboard a Taiwanese fishing vessel. The captain reportedly refused to return to port for medical treatment, as they “hadn’t caught enough fish to justify the trip.” Tangkotta lost two fingers, and was fired and denied compensation upon returning to land. Another former migrant fisher, Adrian Dogdodo
RSS