President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has constantly mentioned in recent interviews with media outlets that the current cross-strait talks were also promoted by the previous government under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and thanked the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for its past endeavors. He also said that this is a mode of cooperation between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the opposition parties.
Ma was not wrong about some things. The previous government hoped to sign a peace agreement with China, proposed establishing an interactive framework for cross-strait peace and stability and promoted cross-trait talks on 18 different issues. In addition, Taiwan successfully reached three agreements with China between January in 2005 and May this year, including two agreements on chartered flights during Lunar New Year and one agreement on special chartered flights. During this period, six rounds of negotiations on passenger and cargo chartered flights and eight rounds of talks on tourists were also held.
However, Ma was wrong about other things. There is a considerable difference between the foundation of cross-strait talks proposed by the Ma administration and those proposed by the DPP. The Chen administration insisted on Taiwan’s sovereignty and it refused to accept the so-called “1992 consensus” based on the “one China” principle as a basis for cross-strait talks. As a result, Beijing was not willing to conduct negotiations with the Chen government.
The Chen government held its stance firmly for four years and China finally gave up on the “one China” principle and was willing to conduct talks with Taiwan on issues such as chartered flights and tourism. China has constantly interfered with cross-strait talks in a political manner, limiting progress in talks for a long time. However, the Chen administration made the strategic choice to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty and interests first.
Ever since Ma took office, he has publicly accepted the “1992 consensus” and said that both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to the greater China area. In addition, he gave up Taiwan’s UN membership bid and allowed Taiwan to apply to participate in international organizations using the title of “Chinese Taipei.” He was also willing to discuss Taiwan’s international situation with Beijing and agreed to be called “Mr Ma” by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林). In addition, he defined cross-strait relations as “not state-to-state” relations and described Taiwan as a “region.”
The previous government never accepted principles like these. Now they have become the premises that have made China willing to negotiate with the Ma government.
Faced with much public doubt and apprehension, the Ma administration should assume responsibility for promoting the legitimacy of its cross-strait policies instead of using Chen Shui-bian as a pretext.
If Ma thinks that his policies are in line with those of the previous government and that the DPP’s doubts are groundless, then he should immediately invite DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for a talk on cross-strait issues. This would not only contribute to dispelling public doubts, but would also help the ruling and opposition parties reach a consensus and promote mutual cooperation. These are serious matters at hand and Ma should not avoid them by using his pet phrase of: “Thank you for your advice.”
Tung Chen-yuan is an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of Development Studies at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath