At the annual Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) forum held in Beijing on March 24, former KMT chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) put forward the concept of “one country, two areas” as the basis for future cross-strait talks. This proposal appeared to come out of the clear blue sky, and has raised eyebrows in Taiwan and overseas.
The move caused commotion in Taiwan, with the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Taiwan Solidarity Union criticizing it and promising to mobilize protests. What is different about it? Or is it in line with existing policy, as the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has claimed?
Let us examine the idea and its context, and see if it helps or hurts Taiwan’s international position.
First, we must note that the proposal was launched at the CCP-KMT forum, which has become an annual ritual between the two parties. This is not a good development for Taiwan, because the topic was raised in party-to-party discussions. Experience shows that the CCP-KMT forum is not the proper place for the development of cross-strait policy, because it does not involve legislative oversight, accountability or transparency, which are essential elements in a democracy.
Second, it looks suspiciously like the “one country, two systems” formula proposed by China, first for Hong Kong, and later also as a “model” for Taiwan. The new term is therefore a further step on the slippery slope toward the “one country, two systems” formulation. In view of the reluctance of Beijing to give the people of Hong Kong the freedom to choose their own leader and move toward full suffrage, one wonders if this is a wise move.
Third, defenders of the new terminology have argued that it moves the discussion between the two sides of the Strait forward, and that it adheres to the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution. The problem with this argument is that it strengthens Beijing’s hand and weakens Taiwan’s sovereignty by putting Taiwan on the same footing as Hong Kong and Macao, as an “area” that is part of the country called China.
To just about everyone around the world, China is synonymous with the People’s Republic of China. Few outside a small circle of diehard ROC supporters in Taipei still adhere to the argument that “one China” equals the ROC. This is simply not the present-day reality, and the sooner everyone says farewell to that anachronism, the better.
One must also wonder what implications “one country, two areas” would have for foreign policy and defense. An “area” generally does not have a foreign ministry to conduct foreign relations, or a military to defend its territory. Does Wu propose merging the foreign and defense ministries of Taiwan and China?
Wu’s ideas must thus be seen as a turn in the wrong direction, which could lead to instability and a downgrading of Taiwan’s international status.
If Taiwanese and their government want to strengthen Taiwan’s relations with the international community, they need to emphasize — not de--emphasize — Taiwan’s freedom, democracy and sovereignty. Making a complicated situation even more confusing by -inventing yet another fuzzy term does not help.
As I have argued before, moves such as this one and the so-called “1992 consensus” may bring the temporary false perception of a relaxation of tensions across the Strait, but in the longer term, they reduce Taiwan’s room for maneuver on the international stage, leading to increased tension down the road.
Most of all, what does this move actually gain for Taiwan?
If Taiwan really wants to move toward long-term stability, it needs to work on an internal consensus, a “Taiwan consensus,” on how Taiwanese, through a democratic mechanism, perceive their future. For long-term stability, Taiwan needs to strengthen its position as a key member of the regional economic framework among East Asian nations, and for long-term stability it is also essential to develop closer political ties with democratic neighbors such as Japan and the Philippines, as well as faraway friends such as the EU and the US.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan. The views expressed in this article are his own.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS