After having been accused by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) of not clearly stating her policies, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) announced the party’s 10-year policy guidelines on Monday, with her views on cross-strait relations attracting the most attention.
Tsai defined the focus of cross-strait relations by saying that the two sides should seek harmony, but reserve the right to disagree, while seeking agreement in a spirit of conciliation. She wants the two sides to strive for common interests and benefits.
Tsai’s announcement has established the main battlefield between the two main opponents in the presidential election. Mainland Affairs Council Chairperson Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) immediately attacked Tsai, posing 18 questions, while President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) attacked the policy statement in a speech in Kinmen.
Tsai’s view of cross-strait relations approaches the issue from a global perspective. She hopes that multi-layered and multifaceted exchanges between Taiwan and China would result in a framework for cross-strait peace, stability and interaction, which could help establish a stable and constructive bilateral relationship.
Tsai’s cross-strait policy maintains the DPP’s priority on placing Taiwan first and creating a consensus based on Taiwanese identity, but it is more pragmatic than former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) radical approach, in that it seeks mutual strategic gains and beneficial cross-strait trade.
Ma’s view, however, is to approach the issue from a Chinese perspective that expands outward to a global context. He says cross-strait relations must remain within the context of the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution and he sticks to the so-called “1992 consensus,” ignoring the fact that there is no such thing, and “mutual non-denial.”
His view of cross-strait relations is built on the fact that China has been willing to let him have a small corner for himself, so that he can express his views in Taiwan — the rest of the world accepts or understands China’s definition of the cross-strait relationship. This cruel reality is made painfully obvious by China’s suppression of Taiwan in the international arena.
Ma may want to highlight his cross-strait and diplomatic accomplishments by talking about Taiwan becoming an observer at the World Health Assembly, his diplomatic truce and how Taiwan enjoys visa exempt status in almost 100 countries, but the fact is that cross-strait relations have been more stable during his presidency because he and his government have bowed their heads and accepted the so-called “1992 consensus,” giving Ma a little corner for himself where he can continue to develop his pro-China policies in search of his goal of eventual unification.
Ma’s declaration a few days ago that China had rejected requests from three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies to establish diplomatic relations, coupled with the fact that Taiwan’s diplomats and army no longer know what they are fighting to defend, make it clear that the diplomatic truce is just a gradual approach to unification with China.
Regardless of what the DPP’s and KMT’s cross-strait policies look like, China will not be satisfied if they don’t aim to create “one China.”
Both the KMT and the DPP should pay less attention to what China thinks and more attention to what the Taiwanese public want.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US