This month’s annual joint gathering in March of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) National People’s Congress and the People’s Political Consultative Conference is China’s big political bash. Although the gathering is not a time for major changes to China’s Taiwan policy, the congress does revisit the policy as it stands and take stock of where it is.
However, this year is different because it is also the year President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) secured a second term in office. This meeting will be an opportunity for China’s leaders to make a careful assessment of what Taiwan’s election results imply and how to amend their Taiwan policy to reflect the facts on the ground.
It is widely believed that China supported Ma in his re-election bid and that the election results came as a great relief in the corridors of power in Beijing. However, no mandate was delivered in the election for unification, rather the support was for peaceful developments across the Taiwan Strait.
The fact that the Taiwanese election results went as Beijing had hoped was because of the latter’s willingness to start a dialogue, to open up exchanges and to express goodwill.
The developments over the past four years have in no way furthered Beijing’s goal of unification. In fact, the signs are that its cause has lost ground.
Taking the percentage of people in Taiwan who support the idea of eventual unification and subtracting the percentage of those who oppose eventual unification, we arrive at Taiwan’s unification index. We can obtain an independence index in a similar way — by substituting the figures pertinent to support of independence.
According to the Global Views Survey Research Center, the unification index actually decreased between 2006 and last year, falling from minus-25.8 percent to minus-53.9 percent. During the same period, the independence index increased from 4 percent to 14.6 percent. After four years of Ma as president, the unification index is lower and the independence index is higher than after two terms under the Democratic Progressive Party.
We can also look at national identity, subtracting the percentage of Taiwanese who identify themselves as Chinese from those who identify themselves as Taiwanese to obtain the Taiwanese identification index. Research by the National Chengchi University Election Study Center shows that this index rose from minus-7.9 percent in 1993, to 24.4 percent in 2000, 38.3 percent in 2007 and 48.3 percent last year. The Taiwanese identification index increased at its fastest rate during Ma’s first term in office.
Judging from these indices, public opposition to unification is still growing and is easily swayed by sudden events. The peaceful cross-strait developments during the past four years have been based on a creative vagueness — the so-called “1992 consensus” and the view that there is “one China, with each side having their own interpretation” of what that China is.
However, with the politicization of cross-strait talks, limitations placed on Taiwan’s international space, the transition of power in Taiwan and unstable development in China itself, this vagueness is gradually disappearing.
If the governments on both sides of the Strait wish to see the continuation of peaceful developments, they are going to have to face up squarely to the structural factors that underlie their relationship with each other. Cross-strait conflict over the past 62 years derives from Beijing’s insistence on traditional ideas of sovereignty and nationalism under the “one China” principle.
However, the global trend nowadays is moving toward authorities that supersede sovereign powers, working together within cross-border governance mechanisms, including transnational organizations such as the EU or ASEAN, economic integration with transnational currencies such as the euro, and cooperation on environmental, economic and public health issues.
The time for operating cross-strait relations on the basis of opposing traditional sovereign powers and nationalism is over.
Cross-strait reconciliation should be conducted by an authority working within a governance mechanism to promote bilateral cooperation on democracy, human rights and sustainable development. This is the way forward if we are to protect China’s economic development and peaceful cross-strait relations.
So long as China implements democratic and human rights reforms through a peaceful, democratic processes, the final resolution to the cross-strait situation will be tolerated and accepted by Taiwanese and the major world powers. Peaceful cross-strait relations can only be maintained and consolidated if China moves to ensure sustainable development. If it does, the whole world will benefit.
When the report of this year’s joint meeting is released, I hope that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) has refrained from approaching the 21st century problem of cross-strait relations with the 17th century concepts and frameworks of sovereignty, and he has proven to be a little more open and in keeping with the times in his Taiwan policy.
Wen could do this by first, advocating a dialogue with Taiwan on the issues of democracy and human rights. Second, promoting sustainable development in cross-strait cooperation. Third, in broaching exchanges and dialogue with different parties in Taiwan. Fourth, by promoting exchanges between civil society in China and Taiwan. Fifth, in fostering cross-strait reconciliation and cooperation founded on identification with Chinese culture. And finally, by advocating cooperation and communication between Taiwan and China in international organizations.
Tung Chen-yuan is a professor at National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of Development Studies.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers