Ever since it became clear that Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) would lead the pan-green camp in next year’s presidential election, she has made much of the fact that her party is willing to enter into dialogue with Beijing and had set up a think tank specifically to meet that need.
Tsai’s affirmation that the DPP would adopt a “pragmatic” approach to cross-strait relations and seek dialogue with various segments of Chinese society is not only a welcome development, but also a necessary one. Given China’s clout in practically all matters nowadays, from the environment to the economy, a small nation like Taiwan cannot afford to pretend that the giant next door doesn’t exist.
Although Tsai’s strategy for such dialogue remains somewhat vague, from what we have been able to glean so far, it represents a continuation of the opening orchestrated by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) over the past three years, with a few more red lines and a stricter adherence to the principle of Taiwan’s sovereignty.
Welcome though Tsai’s remarks may be, we should remember that the DPP has already gone down that road. In fact, the first two years of former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) first term were marked by optimism — not only in Taiwan, but also in Washington — that Taipei and Beijing could engage in constructive dialogue on a number of issues. That this gambit ultimately failed has often been blamed on Chen and his strong stance on Taiwanese independence, but the fact of the matter is, the experiment ultimately collapsed because of Beijing’s intransigence.
The main sticking point then, and what will likely re-emerge should Tsai’s DPP prevail in next January’s elections, is the clause at the core of the DPP charter: Taiwanese independence. Given that the chairperson has already made it clear that this fundamental policy was non-negotiable, it is easy to see that the dialogue between her party and the Chinese will continue to be carried out under the shadow of likely failure.
In the end, and best intentions notwithstanding on Tsai’s part, it is Beijing, not the DPP, which decides whether the two sides will talk. This is something that Tsai should bear in mind, and so should Ma and his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
While private talks between the DPP and China have already begun, party officials close to the New Frontier Foundation, the think tank in charge of spearheading those efforts, have admitted that the frequency of such meetings had dwindled. While the reasons for less-frequent contacts can only be guessed at, this nevertheless highlights the fact that it is the DPP, and not Beijing, that will have to make requests for dialogue.
Beijing’s willingness to sit down with the DPP is the result of uncertainty over the outcome of January’s presidential election. A strong showing by Ma in that election could convince Beijing that it has little to gain from continuing dialogue with the pan-green camp and could shut it out completely.
The situation in which the DPP could soon find itself in is not without precedent. In the early 1980s, when conditions in Tibet were reportedly “at their best” since the end of the Cultural Revolution, the Dalai Lama’s government-in-exile found it extremely difficult to get access to Chinese officials in Beijing, which was in sharp contrast with a few years earlier, when Beijing had attempted to consolidate the legitimacy of its rule in Tibet by wooing the exiled Tibetan leader. Only by internationalizing the question of Tibet, such as addressing the US Congressional Human Rights Caucus during a visit to Washington, did his movement avoid falling into complete oblivion.
Tsai and her party should heed those lessons from history as they fashion their China policy. Only the insane repeat failed behavior with the expectation that the outcome will be different.
In September 2013, the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) quietly released an internal document entitled, “Coursebook on the Military Geography of the Taiwan Strait.” This sensitive, “military-use-only” coursebook explains why it is strategically vital that China “reunify” (annex) Taiwan. It then methodically analyzes various locations of interest to People’s Liberation Army (PLA) war planners. The coursebook highlights one future battlefield in particular: Fulong Beach, in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District, which it describes as “3,000 meters long, flat, and straight,” and located at “the head of Taiwan.” A black and white picture of Fulong’s sandy coastline occupies the
US President Joe Biden’s first news conference last month offered reassuring and concerning insights regarding his administration’s approach to China. Biden did not mention the contentious meeting in Alaska where US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan confronted China’s top two foreign policy officials. The Americans implicitly affirmed the administration of former US president Donald Trump’s direct pushback against communist China’s repressive domestic governance and aggressive international behavior. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) and Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) had explicitly demanded a return to the policies of
Early last month, China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC), officially approved the country’s 14th Five-Year Plan. The strategy was supposed to demonstrate that China has a long-term economic vision that would enable it to thrive, despite its geopolitical contest with the US. However, before the ink on the NPC’s stamp could dry, China had already begun sabotaging the plan’s chances of success. The new plan’s centerpiece is the “dual-circulation” strategy, according to which China would aim to foster growth based on domestic demand and technological self-sufficiency. This would not only reduce China’s reliance on external demand; it would also
Interrupting the assimilation of Xinjiang’s Uighur population would result in an unmanageable national security threat to China. Numerous governments and civil society organizations around the world have accused China of massive human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and labeled Beijing’s inhumane and aggressive social re-engineering efforts in the region as “cultural genocide.” Extensive evidence shows that China’s forceful ethnic assimilation policies in Xinjiang are aimed at replacing Uighur ethnic and religious identity with a so-called scientific communist dogma and Han Chinese culture. The total assimilation of Uighurs into the larger “Chinese family” is also Beijing’s official, central purpose of its ethnic policies