During a forum on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) 10-year policy platform on May 2, DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) raised the idea of holding an unconditional dialogue with China. While that has been the consistent position of the DPP, I, as an external observer think it is significant that the proposal was made at this time.
First, apart from meaning that China will not be able to demand that the DPP accept the “one China” principle before dialogue is conducted, “unconditional” also means the DPP cannot demand that Beijing first relinquish the “one China” policy or accept the DPP’s view of Taiwanese sovereignty before dialogue is started. In short, “unconditional” means that neither party can set preconditions for talks.
Second, talking about dialogue with China at a forum on the DPP’s 10-year policy platform not only sends a message to the international community that the DPP is not unwilling to talk with China, it also shows that the DPP is confident that it can regain power in the 2012 presidential election. The party is therefore preparing for a possible electoral win by discussing how to handle relations with China, and dialogue is of course one important step in this regard.
Third, Tsai said in a subsequent interview that regardless of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) personal stance on the issue, he will still be constrained by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This, coupled with Tsai’s neutral comments about Hu in the same interview, implies that the DPP will take a more pragmatic approach in its China policy, considering the systemic constraints on decision-making by individuals. It also shows that the DPP does not plan to back down and that it is aware that it cannot raise a host of impractical suggestions to China or harbor impractical expectations.
Fourth, Tsai has shown her determination to lead the DPP’s China policies and has hinted that China should abandon its practice of inviting individual DPP members to China. Her comments also hinted at the necessity of establishing a reasonable set of guidelines for dialogue while at the same time telling China that it is courting disaster by trying to handle Taiwan through cooperating with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
It also shows how Beijing’s passage of the “Anti-Secession” Law and its attempts to define Taiwan as a leftover from the Chinese civil war is not only far removed from reality but also unacceptable to Taiwanese.
Keeping a pragmatic attitude lies at the heart of these four issues. The pan-blue camp and China have taken Tsai’s words as an indication of possible plans to visit China. I think this has blurred the issue and the emphasis should be on whether we can create a feasible mode of interaction between the two sides. The information contained in Tsai’s remarks is something that Beijing cannot afford to ignore.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS