When Mainland Affairs Council Minister Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) met Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) Minister Zhang Zhijun (張志軍) in Nanjing, China, on Tuesday, they addressed each other using their formal titles. This direct meeting between the two official authorities in charge of cross-strait relations has taken the relationship to the next level, moving past the old formula of having all contacts channeled through the semi-official Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS). While this represented a breakthrough, it would be prudent not to draw any far-reaching conclusions because of the vast difference that exists between the two sides in terms of interests, values, politics and economics.
Prior to Wang’s departure, the legislature adopted a resolution stipulating that he should not discuss political issues or issue a joint statement with Zhang. This meant that there should be no closing consensus and that any conclusions should be the individual interpretation of each side. Apart from the significance of the formal procedure itself then, the meeting did not bring any major constructive advances.
With Taiwan wanting to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and China wanting to complete the follow-up talks to the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), chances are the two sides were talking past each other. China wants Taiwan safely within the “one China” framework before deciding whether it is willing to let it join any other economic organizations.
On the eve of the meeting, there was much talk about the possibility of an agreement on allowing Chinese students in Taiwan to join Taiwan’s health insurance system and Taiwanese students in China to enjoy Chinese medical insurance, as well as humanitarian visitation rights in China for Taiwanese. However, the two sides reached no decision on these issues and only agreed to work to find solutions. It is clear that the two sides are still measuring each other up and have no intention of making any substantive decisions. Wang may have wanted to come back with some kind of achievement in his bag, but the Chinese side was not willing to offer it to him.
In light of the legislative resolution, it was TAO that brought up political issues in the post-meeting press conference. By not responding to these statements and thus allowing China to score a point, Wang failed to fulfill his ministerial duties.
There was speculation that the Wang-Zhang meeting was an excuse to pave the way for a meeting between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) later this year, but it was not mentioned at the press conferences, making it difficult to guess whether the issue was ignored or if it was broached and the two decided not to announce it.
The Ma administration’s attitude prior to the meeting seemed to imply that it would go to any length to bring about a meeting between the president and his Chinese counterpart. These include its willingness to amend the senior-high school history course outline, the Control Yuan’s censure of the Cabinet for not using the nation’s official title and the Ministry of Education’s statement that Nanjing is the capital of the Republic of China — all of which were intended to pander to China. There is little possibility that Wang and Zhang did not discuss a Ma-Xi meeting, but since the time is not ripe, they tried to avoid a public backlash by keeping any such discussions under wraps.
In the future, all they need do is pick up their cellphones and call each other to discuss the conditions for a Ma-Xi meeting and, if necessary, offer a few concessions. This is the real nightmare that the legislature, the opposition and the public must do anything they can to avoid.
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