In what has been billed as the first formal meeting between Taiwan’s and China’s top officials in charge of cross-strait affairs since 1949, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) met Taiwan Affairs Office Minister Zhang Zhijun (張志軍) on Tuesday last week in Nanjing, China, with the two men addressing one another by their formal titles. Some people in Taipei have been going out of their way to raise a big fanfare about a possible meeting between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and this prospect has drawn a lot of attention to the meeting between Wang and Zhang.
Although the legislature had the foresight to draw some red lines before Wang’s departure, Taiwan is sure to pay a price for this meeting with his Chinese counterpart.
Face-to-face talks between high-ranking government officials mark a departure from the long-established practice of using semi-governmental organizations — the Straits Exchange Foundation and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) — as proxy contacts.
The Ma administration, accustomed as it is to wishful thinking, sees this development as a success for its cross-strait policy of “mutual non-denial” and it has been boasting about how the meeting was “of great significance” and “marked the start of a new chapter in cross-strait relations.”
In China, ever since Xi took over as president, he has kept making moves designed to urge Taiwan to engage in political negotiations. In an informal meeting with former vice president Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) in October last year, Xi said: “The longstanding political division between the two sides will have to be eventually resolved step by step as it should not be passed on generation after generation.”
Last week’s meeting between Wang and Zhang was the first step in a game where the goal is to further China’s “unification” agenda by means of government-to-government negotiations.
In the face of widespread opposition to political talks among Taiwanese, Ma at first responded to Chinese pressure for political talks by saying that the two sides should talk about business and economics first and leave politics till later. After he started his second term in office last year, Ma’s incompetent performance dragged his approval rate as low as 9 percent in opinion polls. Keen to leave some kind of legacy from his time in office, he has been making a last-ditch effort to achieve something with his China policy. Ma still clings to the goal of “eventual unification” and envisions a meeting between himself and Xi, and that is the setting in which last week’s meeting between Wang and Zhang took place.
Given this context, the Wang-Zhang meeting and any ensuing official negotiations are sure to harm Taiwan’s interests. Signs of this can already be seen. The current pattern of developments reflects China’s strategy of setting up a framework, luring the other side into its trap and then breaking down resistance by offering bogus concessions in exchange for real ones. The format of the Wang-Zhang meeting created the appearance of a “breakthrough in cross-strait relations,” which made the Ma government — driven by its need for favors from China — eager to take part, and also attracted the attention of international media. China started off by making the minor concession of having its minister address the other by his official title, while actually undermining the authority of the Mainland Affairs Council. Nevertheless, Ma and his government prefer to delude themselves by celebrating China’s apparent gesture of goodwill.
Although China’s handling of the meeting created the appearance of flexibility, its standpoints remain clear and unchanged. Chinese government statements and media reports still referred to Wang as “Taiwan’s mainland affairs chief,” and, as usual, after the official meeting was over they announced that the two sides had “arrived at several positive common understandings.”
In recent years China has repeatedly talked about “common understandings” and “consensuses” as part of its efforts to promote unification with Taiwan. In the same vein, the cross-strait forum on media prospects that was held in Beijing in December last year came up with a six-point “joint initiative.” While the deluded heads of Taiwanese media organizations endorsed this “joint initiative” amid the contrived atmosphere of the forum, it stirred up a good deal of controversy in Taiwan.
The Wang-Zhang meeting was held behind closed doors, so that even though no memorandum or communique was released after the meeting, China has still been able to inject its desired content. The Ma government is so keen on arranging a meeting between Ma and Xi that it has had to remain silent about China’s misrepresentations.
Precedents for this tactic were set long ago. When negotiations took place between the foundation and ARATS in Hong Kong in 1992, China insisted on inserting questions and implications about “one China,” but the two sides did not achieve a consensus. Then-foundation chairman Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) wrote in his memoir that there was no such thing as the so-called “1992 consensus.” The ridiculous thing is that this non-existent consensus has become the basis of the Ma government’s China policy.
However, what was false to begin with can never become true and that is why Wang’s full official title and the nation’s official title — the Republic of China (ROC) — could only be mentioned by Wang himself when he was paying his respects at the tomb of ROC founder Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) in Nanjing.
Taiwan has already paid a price in a number of ways for the Wang-Zhang meeting: The Ma government is trying to please China by revising the course outlines for certain subjects in Taiwan’s senior-high schools by reintroducing a mandatory China-oriented historical perspective, and Wang complied with China’s restrictions by avoiding three “unmentionable” topics — human rights, democracy and the national title. Ma himself says that cross-strait affairs are not international relations. It is easy to see how willing the Ma administration is to walk into China’s traps.
The reality of the past six years is that Ma’s government has not performed well in any aspect of domestic or foreign policy, be it business, economics, welfare or anything else. Given this government’s poor performance, how could anyone in Taiwan trust it as it forges ahead with its China policies and engages in formal political negotiations with Chinese authorities, which have never relinquished their aim of annexing Taiwan?
Only the public can limit the damage. Having been voted into office by Taiwanese, legislators should do their duty by sternly reviewing the Wang-Zhang meeting and everything else that Wang did during his trip to China. The legislature has refused to rubber stamp the cross-strait agreement on trade in services that the foundation and ARATS signed in Shanghai in June last year, and this shows that as long as the legislature sticks to its guns and citizens keep an eye on what is going on, they can make it hard for Ma’s government to get away with recklessness.
Notably, many observers have drawn attention to the question of establishing procedural legitimacy and a legal basis for negotiating and signing agreements with China, and these things will become essential and must be put into practice now that Taiwan and China are entering the stage of official political negotiations. The best way to limit the damage to Taiwan, and to develop China policies that give Taiwanese peace of mind, would be to teach Ma and his government a hard lesson in the elections that are scheduled for the end of this year — ideally by booting Ma’s Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials out of office and voting in Democratic Progressive Party representatives.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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