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.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS