After years of rapprochement, agreements and high-level talks, one could hardly blame the Chinese public for thinking that the efforts initiated by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and then-Chinese president Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) would eventually lead to a final, political resolution to the conflict in the Taiwan Strait.
On the Chinese side, there were hopes during the early days of Ma’s first term in office that once the relatively easy negotiations on trade issues were done with, the two sides would quickly initiate political dialogue on Taiwan’s status and perhaps sign a peace accord of some sort. The more optimistic even hoped that the first steps could be taken while Hu was still chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and failing that, still in the office of the president.
That time came and went, and Hu went home empty-handed. Ma was re-elected last year on a platform that promised more of the same — and more of the same is exactly what the Chinese got. Negotiations continued, but remained focused on economics, investment, trade, tourism and education.
Now Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is in office and chairman of the CCP, and it would be reasonable to expect that he hopes to surpass the achievements of his predecessor on the Taiwan “question.” In fact, the rising nationalist sentiment in China will make it difficult for Xi to ignore issues such as “reunification” and the restoration of China’s “honor.”
However, Xi is in for a bit of trouble. As former American Institute in Taiwan chairman Richard Bush said in Taipei yesterday, there are serious “conceptual differences” between Taiwanese and Chinese on the issue of political talks. Among other things, those “conceptual differences” include a democratic system, freedom of expression, a vibrant civil society and an irrepressible desire to maintain one’s way of life — not to mention rising Taiwanese identification and support for de jure independence.
There is more bad news for Xi. Unlike the CCP, Ma’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must compete in elections if it wants to remain in power. And with the next presidential election less than three years hence, Ma will be unable to dramatically alter the course of his engagement with China. Even though the Constitution bars Ma from running for a third consecutive term, his successor — and perhaps even his replacement as KMT chairman, should his low popularity and a string of corruption scandals result in his ouster — would undoubtedly apply tremendous pressure on Ma not to sabotage their chances of being elected in 2016 by acting against the wishes of the majority.
What this means is that even if Ma intended to “sell out” Taiwan, his own party would rebel against him, knowing full well that such a betrayal of public trust would be political suicide for the party.
Under the tyranny of those “conceptual differences,” engaging in political talks with Beijing would be the ultimate example of acting against the wishes of the majority. Unless it decides to send tanks into the streets and uproot Taiwan’s hard-won democratic system, the KMT will not be able to go much beyond what public preferences dictate and will instead be compelled to reflect the safest common denominator within the Taiwanese polity. And that is the so-called “status quo.”
In the name of the nation’s 23 million people, we therefore apologize to Xi, who will have to look elsewhere if he wants to outdo the successes of his predecessor.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS