As Taiwan gears up for its next legislative and presidential elections scheduled for Jan. 14, the debates about domestic and foreign policy issues are also heating up.
While many voters will decide for whom to cast their ballot on the basis of such issues as the economy, jobs, social welfare and good governance, one issue that weighs heavily on the minds of US policymakers is how the outcome of the vote will affect Taiwan’s relations with China.
As I wrote in an earlier article, the present “reduction of tension” is artificial in nature, as it is predicated on policies that give China the impression that Taiwan is moving toward China, increasing the belief that at some time in the not too distant future Beijing will be able to force Taiwan into some kind of political unification (“The myth about reducing tension,” May 14, 2010, page 8).
Taiwan has brought about this temporary reduction of tension through a policy of rapprochement which has focused on “easier” agreements on exchanges, tourism, cross-strait flights, etc, culminating in the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), while the more “difficult” issues, such as sovereignty and political ties, are being postponed.
While these agreements may have given Taiwan some respite, they were also controversial, as in the eyes of critics they have tied the nation too closely to China. In other words, they effectively gave Beijing more leverage over Taiwan, while decreasing the nation’s room to maneuver internationally.
In particular, one concept that has been used as a basis for this rapprochement needs to be revisited: the so-called “1992 consensus.” The phrase itself sounds innocuous enough: Both sides acknowledge that there is “one China,” with each side retaining its own interpretation of what “one China” means.
However, the concept is controversial because former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) has said that there never was such a consensus and China has never acknowledged that it accepts different interpretations.
Instead of continuing to battle over this term in the run-up to the elections, it would be better for the political parties in Taiwan to come up with a longer-term consensus that focuses exclusively on Taiwan.
Taiwanese are rightfully proud of their democratic achievements and these accomplishments need to be defended.
Such a “Taiwan consensus” could include the following elements: One, Taiwan is a free nation and its democracy needs to be protected. Two, Taiwan wants to live in peace with all its neighbors. This also means that these neighbors need to respect Taiwan’s sovereignty. Three, Taiwan aspires to be a vibrant member of the international community and asks to be accepted as such. Four, relations with China need to be transparent, conducted on an equal footing, without the threat of force.
In view of the significant differences between the political and social systems in Taiwan and China, it cannot be expected that Beijing will easily accept Taiwan for what it is — a lively democracy that wants to chart its own course and determine its own future without undue pressure from China. Indeed, Taiwan’s mere existence as a democracy is a thorn in Beijing’s side.
That is why it is essential that the US and other democratic friends of Taiwan make it crystal clear that they will stand by the nation when it exercises its newfound freedom to elect a new legislature and president in January.
Only then can a true reduction of tension across the Taiwan Strait be achieved.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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