As Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) prioritizes reforms to domestic policy and vows to make the “status quo” the focus of her cross-strait policy if she wins the presidential election next year, some people seem eager to play the “definition game” and are coaxing her into clarifying her definition of the “status quo.”
Sixty-five percent of Taiwanese say they find the idea of maintaining the so-called “status quo” in cross-strait relations acceptable, showing that a majority of the public share a basic understanding of what the “status quo” means: non-governmental exchanges between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, but with no political relationship that gives either side jurisdiction over the other.
Taiwan certainly has no shortage of the prerequisites for defining a nation, and a vast majority of Taiwanese also recognize Taiwan as a nation. Everyone is well aware that the international community does not recognize the importance of maintaining the “status quo,” that the reason for this is based on these nations’ concerns for their own interests and that this is not something that Taiwan can change.
Tsai’s vow to maintain the “status quo” is not an attempt to resolve the cross-strait issue, but rather it is a response to public opinion and a matter of considering the concerns of friendly nations. If great importance was placed on providing a clear and explicit definition of the “status quo,” it would become useless as a tool for responding to changes in international relations.
There can in reality only be one cross-strait “status quo,” but Taiwan cannot stop others from having their own interpretation, as that interpretation itself is the core of the ongoing dispute.
To say that one wants to maintain the cross-strait “status quo” is compatible with the US’ opposition to unilaterally changing the “status quo.” Although the US’ stance remains positive, it should review and adjust its Taiwan policy based on the actual situation, legal concerns and democratic practices, and formally recognize the “status quo” of Taiwan’s democratic evolution.
On the other hand, China has nothing to lose in terms of maintaining the “status quo.” It would likely just issue a warning that if the DPP were to continue to insist on “Taiwan separatism,” as it did under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), it would be “impossible to resolve” the cross-strait situation.
Statements like this are tantamount to admitting that cross-strait relations are a matter of cross-party relations between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), with Beijing warning Taiwan not to follow in the footsteps of Chen, and insisting that Taiwan follow the lead of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), the KMT and the CCP.
Relying on the restrictions placed on Taiwan by the US, CCP and KMT elites are colluding in an attempt to form a “mutual agreement” by which Taiwan can be annexed, hence changing the “status quo.”
Nevertheless, faced with a strengthened Taiwanese local consciousness and the possibility of the DPP regaining power, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) should know that KMT-CCP relations, which are not to the liking of a majority of Taiwanese, are likely to backfire.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Zane Kheir
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS