At the rate that the meetings between Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Beijing leaders are being announced, a few more weeks and we’ll be seeing the region’s equivalent of the Camp David meetings. With the administration of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) coming to an end in less than a month, Taiwan and China seem poised to enter the age of “peace talks.”
What remains to be seen, however, is whether the talks will be substantive discussions that could lead to real conflict resolution or, as happened with the Israelis and Palestinians, become talk for the sake of talk, with no real promise of peace.
The key to successful negotiations lies in parties treating each other as equals. One of the principal reasons why the Israeli-Palestinian talks have led nowhere other than deeper savagery is that the negotiating playing field was anything but level, which meant that the stronger side was able to use the semblance of “peace talks” to impose realities on the ground that were largely in its favor. Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak’s offer at Camp David in 2000, lauded by many as a “courageous” overture to the Palestinians, was in fact less than what, by law and numerous UN resolutions, should have been given to Palestinians. And yet, given the power gap, the weaker party was blamed for the failure of Camp David and the descent into reciprocal violence that ensued.
While the conflict pitting Israel against the Palestinians is substantially different from that between Taiwan and China, lessons can nevertheless be learned and, if a true, peaceful resolution to the conflict is to emerge, the same mistakes avoided.
The KMT negotiators who will be heading to China in the coming months must make it clear from the outset that they are engaging on behalf of Taiwan’s interests.
Emissaries such as former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰), however, give us little reason to hope. His first meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) in 2005 came hot on the heels of Beijing’s “Anti-Secession” Law, which should have been reason enough for any politician who has Taiwan’s interests at heart to cancel the meeting. Instead, as you read this, Lien is blessing that historic meeting with yet another one.
While in office, former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) highlighted Beijing’s unwillingness to engage in dialogue as equals on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Lee didn’t back down, which led to a freeze in talks. After the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won the 2000 presidential election, Beijing didn’t even bother to seek to negotiate, knowing full well that the Chen administration would never negotiate under a handicap.
Beijing now sees a renewed chance for dialogue. But will it be on its terms, as was the case in the 1990s, or will it be more flexible, more willing to avoid the catastrophically inappropriate road taken by Israeli negotiators? The onus will be on it to determine the nature of the talks.
The KMT, meanwhile, must pay close attention to the character of Beijing’s approach to negotiation and should immediately pull out if it becomes apparent that Taiwan is not being treated as an equal. By choosing to negotiate from a position of weakness, the KMT would be unable to serve the interests of Taiwan and quickly see its supporter base dwindle. This would also harden its opponents, rekindle the kind of nationalistic fervor it has sought to mute and represent the surest path to a return of the DPP in 2012.
In September 2013, the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) quietly released an internal document entitled, “Coursebook on the Military Geography of the Taiwan Strait.” This sensitive, “military-use-only” coursebook explains why it is strategically vital that China “reunify” (annex) Taiwan. It then methodically analyzes various locations of interest to People’s Liberation Army (PLA) war planners. The coursebook highlights one future battlefield in particular: Fulong Beach, in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District, which it describes as “3,000 meters long, flat, and straight,” and located at “the head of Taiwan.” A black and white picture of Fulong’s sandy coastline occupies the
US President Joe Biden’s first news conference last month offered reassuring and concerning insights regarding his administration’s approach to China. Biden did not mention the contentious meeting in Alaska where US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan confronted China’s top two foreign policy officials. The Americans implicitly affirmed the administration of former US president Donald Trump’s direct pushback against communist China’s repressive domestic governance and aggressive international behavior. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) and Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) had explicitly demanded a return to the policies of
Early last month, China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC), officially approved the country’s 14th Five-Year Plan. The strategy was supposed to demonstrate that China has a long-term economic vision that would enable it to thrive, despite its geopolitical contest with the US. However, before the ink on the NPC’s stamp could dry, China had already begun sabotaging the plan’s chances of success. The new plan’s centerpiece is the “dual-circulation” strategy, according to which China would aim to foster growth based on domestic demand and technological self-sufficiency. This would not only reduce China’s reliance on external demand; it would also
Interrupting the assimilation of Xinjiang’s Uighur population would result in an unmanageable national security threat to China. Numerous governments and civil society organizations around the world have accused China of massive human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and labeled Beijing’s inhumane and aggressive social re-engineering efforts in the region as “cultural genocide.” Extensive evidence shows that China’s forceful ethnic assimilation policies in Xinjiang are aimed at replacing Uighur ethnic and religious identity with a so-called scientific communist dogma and Han Chinese culture. The total assimilation of Uighurs into the larger “Chinese family” is also Beijing’s official, central purpose of its ethnic policies