Almost two weeks ago, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) honorary chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) met with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) in Beijing, and broached the “one country, two areas (一國兩區)” concept as, Wu said, he had been entrusted to do.
The news caused an uproar in Taiwan. Although President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said the proposal is in line with the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution, vice president-elect Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), knowing full well that Beijing intends to put the Taiwan-based Cross-Straits Common Market Foundation (CSCMF) on equal footing with its Hong Kong and Macau counterparts, still attended the Boao Forum for Asia annual conference on Sunday in the capacity of the CSCMF’s chief advisor, with Ma’s approval.
This is tantamount to the government announcing to the international community that the “one country, two areas” proposal recognizes Beijing’s basic position of the “one China” principle, in which “Taiwan is part of China.” Taiwanese are seeing their room to maneuver in international law being appropriated by Beijing at an ever-increasing rate.
In response to concerns over the new proposal, Ma has said it complies with the Constitution, adding that neither of former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) or Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) amended the relevant parts of the Constitution when in office, thereby indicating their tacit agreement. They were, so Ma’s suggestion goes, “one country, two area” presidents.
However, the Ma administration has been joining Beijing to attack Lee’s model of a “special state-to-state relationship” and Chen’s “one country on either side” of the Taiwan Strait.
Clearly, the pronouncements on the nature of Taiwan’s sovereignty by its national leaders does have a considerable bearing on how Beijing and the international community recognize Taiwan’s status. Otherwise, would Beijing have hurried through the “Anti-Secession” Law despite no changes having been made to the relevant parts of the ROC Constitution at the time?
The government thinks it can hide behind the Constitution to cover up that it is complying with Beijing’s “one China” principle. The Constitution was the same in the Lee and Chen periods, but Taiwanese were not worried about Taiwan losing its sovereignty. However, concerns over Taiwan being annexed by China have risen dramatically since Ma took office.
Now, regardless of how China defines the status of the CSCMF relative to similar institutions in Hong Kong and Macau, Wu Den-yih’s attendance at the Boao Forum constitutes an indication to the international community that the government’s “one country, two areas” proposal comprises a tacit recognition of the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) position that Taiwan is essentially a region belonging to it, with Taipei basically a regional government, and that it — the PRC — has agreed to have Wu Den-yih attend the forum in a consultant capacity. No wonder people suspect that the “one country, two areas” proposal is intended to pave the way for political talks between Taiwan and China.
The Ma administration has overseen the unraveling of all the hard work and consolidation of Taiwan’s sovereign status achieved through years of democratization.
If Taiwanese fail to register our protest in the strongest terms and Ma continues to confirm “one country, two areas” in international forums after May 20, we won’t be voting for a president in 2016 — we will be choosing our chief executive.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of Taiwan Thinktank.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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