A Chinese professor at Tsing-hua University in Beijing, Chu Shulong (楚樹龍), published an article entitled Communication for Better Understanding and Improvement of Cross-Taiwan Strait Relations for the Brookings Institution on Friday, suggesting that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait handle the Taiwan issue based on the concepts of “one country, two governments” and “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.”
Since China’s Taiwan Affairs Office has not yet made any negative comments about the article, some pro-blue academics are very excited, partly because they believe the Chinese government is showing some flexibility and partly because they feel this is evidence that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration’s insistence on the so-called “1992 consensus” and the principle of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” is acceptable to both sides.
The excitement of the pro-blue academics and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) proves one thing: The government’s policy of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” is based on the premise of the “one China” principle, under which Taiwan recognizes that it is part of China.
This policy will only accelerate the erosion of Taiwan’s sovereignty, a problem that the nation has been dealing with for the past three years.
In the 1990s, Chinese officials repeatedly denied the existence of a cross-strait consensus on “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.” The main reason for this rejection was that the administration of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) interpreted “one China” from a historical and cultural perspective, not a political one. At the time, Beijing believed the Lee administration used the concept of “one China, two interpretations” to divide the two sides into “two Chinas” or even “one China, one Taiwan.”
However, what China wanted was for Taiwan to admit that it was part of China, under the “one China” principle.
Ma does recognize that Taiwan is part of China, but he emphasizes that his China is the Republic of China (ROC), not the People’s Republic of China (PRC). That means that his interpretation of “one China” is a retreat to the stance of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son, the late president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), that gentlemen cannot stand together with thieves — the ROC and the PRC cannot coexist.
However, the international community, including the US and Japan, assert that there is only one China, and that it is represented by the PRC government. The absurd stance of the Chiangs, which is diametrically opposed to the “one China” consensus of the international community, has caused Taiwan to lose diplomatic allies and to be forced to leave the UN and a number of other international organizations.
Although Ma claims that the ROC represents China, the Chinese side can still take advantage of the international community’s “one China” consensus to claim that it represents Taiwan since Ma recognizes that Taiwan is part of China. Whether the ROC government recognizes the PRC government does not really matter. This is also why Beijing is willing to sign cross-strait agreements with the Ma administration.
This is precisely why, after Ma’s three years in power, the Philippines, Austria and many other countries have started to view Taiwan as a Chinese province. This never happened during the presidency of Lee or former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Chu’s recent article simply clarified the Chinese side’s strategy — and there was nothing new in it.
However, it did expose how the Ma administration’s policy of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” is leading to a crisis as the international consensus over the “one China” principle is growing stronger by the day.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry