Earlier this month, approximately 120 important figures from Taiwan and China gathered at the first ever cross-strait peace forum held in Shanghai.
Apart from being attended by Chinese government officials and policy advisers, several former political officials from the pan-blue and pan-green camps also took part, which made the forum something of a first. China presented an overall attitude of being candid, open and tolerant during this forum.
Each person was allowed to openly express themselves, including former vice premier Wu Rong-i (吳榮義) of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), who proposed the idea that Taiwan and China represent an “allegiance of brotherhood,” while the Taiwanese academics in attendance insisted that the Republic of China (ROC) be acknowledged.
However, the forum also highlighted the political chasm that exists between Taiwan and China. China is still unable to accept the existence of the ROC, while Taiwan’s blue and green camps are both unable to accept China’s precondition of unification.
Why would China, a nation vastly stronger than Taiwan both economically and politically, be willing to go through nongovernmental political dialogue to promote cross-strait political talks?
When the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was in power, Taiwan hoped to engage in political dialogue to facilitate the establishment of an interactive framework for cross-strait peace and stability. President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government is not willing to do so, while China has had to resort a public forum to promote the idea of cross-strait political dialogue. So, just what are China’s goals?
China wants to pressure Ma into engaging in political talks. In the face of the Ma government’s refusal, China now wants to use the more relaxed atmosphere of nongovernmental political dialogue to lower the psychological resistance to cross-strait political talks and to create a mindset among Taiwanese that is supportive of them.
However, as soon as the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government accepts China’s idea of political negotiations, the KMT’s past verbal promises on cross-strait policy will all have to be turned into written agreements. This will be very hard for the Ma government to pull off. The verbal promises were aimed at brushing China off; writing these agreements into law would definitely meet with strong resistance from the public.
The goals of China’s “peaceful offensive” are probably not just aimed at the Ma administration. Given that Ma only has two-and-a-half years left in office, it will be impossible to get him to sign a cross-strait peace initiative, especially when he has already promised that he will not enter into any talks on a cross-strait peace initiative with China during his term.
Over the past five years, Taiwan and China have signed 19 agreements, but the cross-strait diplomatic and military standoff has never ended and Taiwanese are opposed to unification. The number of people who consider “Taiwan” to be their country is rising quickly, even faster than the number of people who thought so during former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) two terms in office. This raises major doubts for long-term peace in cross-strait developments. Peace could become nothing more than an illusion if accidents happen or if there is another change in the ruling party.
Chinese Academic Yen Anlin (嚴安林) made China’s mode of thinking very clear when he said that the peace and stability of the two nations are not only directly linked to the safety, stability and development of Taiwan’s economy, but also to breeding a peaceful and stable environment that China needs now that it has opened up and conducted reforms. He also said peace and stability are linked to the Chinese dream of seeing the re-emergence of a great China.
What this implies is that only the signing of a systemic framework for development can consolidate peace in the Taiwan Strait and it is only in this way that peaceful development in China can be assured. The real conflicts need to be fundamentally solved, instead of “shelving disputes” and “seeking common ground while reserving differences” as has been suggested in the past.
Following the rapid growth of its economic and military power, China has become more self-confident, tolerant and more willing to handle the political differences that have existed for a long time. At the cross-strait peace forum, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun (張志軍) said that the forum is beneficial to encouraging different sectors of society to think about feasible ways to solve political differences.
He also said it is beneficial to creating a more cordial atmosphere for negotiations for cross-strait political talks and useful in providing experience and methods to use in future.
A cross-strait peace initiative is not something that can be achieved overnight, and it is something that requires everyone to face up to the political differences that exist and show an open, tolerant and pragmatic attitude to forge a consensus between the two sides.
This is the only way to go about building a systemic framework for peaceful development between Taiwan and China.
Tung Chen-yuan is a distinguished professor in the Graduate Institute of Development Studies at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
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.
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
RSS