When it comes to the possibility of cross-strait political negotiations during President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) second term, recent incidents illustrate the uncertainties and dangers behind such a sensitive subject.
Immediately after Ma won his re-election bid on Jan. 14, some US-based academics suggested that more consideration should be taken if the conditions were not met for cross-strait political talks in Ma’s second term. Beijing exerted pressure for talks on political issues two years ago, but such attempts were rejected by the Ma administration. However, Beijing has never given up on its efforts.
Despite his earlier pledge not to negotiate political issues with China if he was re-elected and to continue his current stance of “economics first, politics later” and “easier issues first and harder issues later,” since beating Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), Ma’s latest cross-strait moves have resulted in mixed reactions at home and abroad.
First, Ma sent former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) to Beijing, where he raised the issue of defining cross-strait relations as “one country, two areas (一國兩區)” at a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) on March 22.
Though the concept is not new, it was the first time that Ma made it “official” to his Chinese counterpart. In the past, Ma has always highlighted the notion of the so-called “1992 consensus” — defined as “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” — as the foundation of cross-strait relations under his administration.
Beijing’s initial response to the new formula was negative.
Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) spokesman Yang Yi (楊毅) did not mention anything about the “one country, two areas” concept, except to repeat the importance of maintaining the “one China principle” and elaborating on the idea that “both sides of the Strait belong to one China.”
Yang also stressed that cross-strait relations are not state-to-state relations.
In his meeting with Chinese Vice Premier Lee Keqiang (李克強) at the Boao Forum for Asia in Hainan, China, on Sunday, vice president-elect Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) called on both Beijing and Taipei to shelve their differences, while prioritizing “improving the livelihoods” of the people on both sides of the Strait. Wu also asked Beijing to allow more room for Taipei’s participation in the international community. TAO Director Wang Yi’s (王毅) follow-up emphasized consolidating “political trust” in cross-strait relations.
After four years of fast-tracking cross-strait economic relations and Beijing’s “campaign” to get Ma re-elected, what need is there for further consolidation of “political trust” if political negotiations are excluded at least by the Taiwanese government in the next four years? What is the major hurdle to cross-strait political talks? And what is the rationale behind Ma pushing the concept of “one country, two areas” into cross-strait relations?
It is evident that Beijing expects some “payback” from Ma following his re-election. Chinese leaders were willing to play Ma’s game of upholding the so-called “1992 consensus” during the presidential election for the sake of ensuring Ma’s victory, but the fact is, Beijing has never endorsed the concept of a “1992 consensus.” Beijing has only one definition of “one China,” and China and Taiwan are both part of it.
So when Ma tried to test the water by having Wu float the constitutionally defined “one country, two areas,” Beijing took the cautious approach of ignoring such a move. The reason is simple: There is no way Beijing would ever accept “one China” as “the Republic of China.”
Hence, the irony is that, if Ma insists on maintaining his policy of “economics over politics,” why would he rush to define cross-strait relations in accordance with the Constitution before he is even inaugurated?
After Beijing poured cold water on the “one country, two areas” formula, Wu dared not bring it up again in front of Lee at the Boao Forum.
One possibility is that it was an attempt by Ma to distract public attention from his government’s poor handling of major domestic issues, such as the US beef issue and public dissatisfaction with the rise in fuel prices. Another possibility is that it was to create some bargaining chips when facing possible pressure from Beijing for political talks in the future. It could be seen as Ma’s effort to “pre-empt” Beijing’s pressure for political negotiations.
The problem is, it demonstrates Ma’s flip-flop decisionmaking style, as well as a huge lack of transparency when it comes to crucial issues related to cross-strait relations.
This constitutes uncertainty and danger.
Liu Shih-chung is director of the research center at the Taipei-based Taiwan Brain Trust.
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