“One China, two Taiwans” is a concept that was proposed by some academics several years ago. While the “one China” view is getting stronger, the “two Taiwans” has become adrift following the “rise” of China.
Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) was wined and dined by former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜), and pro-unification groups and people from the corporate sector also welcomed his visit last week. This is one of the two Taiwans.
On the other hand, Chen could not go to southern Taiwan and was in effect grounded in Taipei. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) staged protests and besieged the hotel where Chen was staying. Demonstrators tied protest ribbons around their heads and carried national flags. This is the other Taiwan. Under the shadow of “one China,” the “two Taiwans” failed to communicate with each other and were wary of each other, as if the real enemy for each of them were not in China, but in Taiwan.
Beijing has remained consistent in its “one China” policy, but has become much more flexible in its application. The Chinese government grasped the strategic advantage of the KMT’s return to power in May to confine the future development of Taiwan through various agreements signed by both sides. The KMT and the Chinese Communist Party have agreed to accelerate cross-strait talks within a short period of time, with the chairmen of the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and ARATS holding talks twice this year.
This appears to contravene the Agreement on the Establishment of Systematic Liaison and Communication Channels between the SEF and the ARATS (兩岸聯繫與會談制度協議) signed at the talks between former SEF chairman Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) and former ARATS chairman Wang Daohan (汪道涵) in Singapore in 1993, which stipulated that vice chairmen, rather than the chairmen, of both agencies should meet twice every year. SEF Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and his ARATS counterpart said that they would expedite cross-strait relations despite voices of dissent within Taiwan. They were not deterred by a recent public opinion poll conducted by Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council that showed 30 percent of respondents worried that cross-strait exchanges were being pushed ahead too fast.
The agreements signed during this second round of talks between Chiang and Chen in regards to aviation routes, direct sea transportation links and postal services herald the arrival of the “major three links” era across the Taiwan Strait. The “three links”— direct postal sercices, transportation and trade — proposed by China in 1979 have finally come true. Article 95 of the Act Governing Relations Between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例) stipulates that “the competent authorities shall request the consent of the Legislative Yuan before permitting direct business transactions or direct sea or air transportation between the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area.”
But the wording of the agreements says that they will take effect 40 days after being signed.
Meanwhile, the distance between Taiwan’s ruling and opposition parties seems farther than that between Taipei and Beijing.
The conflict between the pan-green camp and the pan-blue camp did not end after the presidential election, and cross-strait relations are the main focus of contention between the two parties. While welcoming Chen’s visit, the KMT has actually widened the gap between the “two Taiwans.”
Lin Cheng-yi is a research fellow at the Institute of European and American Studies at Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS