Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) returned to Taiwan from his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in China with what he called the “deeper 1992 consensus,” plenty of wishful thinking and talk of a cross-strait symbiosis.
It will take a long time to see whether Beijing will eventually allow Taiwan to participate and integrate on a regional or international level as Chu hopes. However, there are still many unresolved obstacles in the short-term that do not seem likely to improve following Chu’s meeting with Xi. In fact, they might actually worsen.
Among restrictions at cultural exchanges that constrain Taiwan’s status and identity, by far the thorniest is displaying the country name and the Republic of China (ROC) flag.
To Chu’s surprise, his acknowledgment of “one China” has exacerbated the problem of having a separate flag and country name for cultural exchange events and gives China’s cross-strait affairs officials even less of a reason to accept Taiwan’s flag or the ROC following his statement.
Why should one symbiotic entity need to have two flags and two names, after all? The problem related to the national flag and country name always leads to displeasure and competition between players and spectators on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Thus, conflicts over the national flag and official country name continue to be main sources of internalized anti-Chinese sentiment among Taiwan’s younger generation.
Using the concept that both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to “one China” to improve cross-strait perceptions of the Beijing-dubbed “three middles and the youth” — residents of central and southern Taiwan; middle and low-income families; small and medium-sized enterprises; and young people — has the potential to backfire in regard to Taiwan’s younger generation.
Given that such cultural exchanges lie within the deepening of the so-called “1992 consensus” for elites, it will become increasingly difficult to deepen such exchanges in the future.
To use academic exchange as an example, to deepen cross-strait academic exchanges and cooperation, cooperation between individuals should be increased to include cooperation between academic institutions. Then, Chinese institutions should be asked what their Taiwanese counterparts should do in regard to the word “national” in front of the names of Taiwanese institutions.
Jokes regarding the usage of the word “national” for Taiwanese schools are too numerous to count, insofar as some academic staff have been turning a blind eye to the matter.
However, if there was a serious, large-scale international conference, they would not be able to beat around the bush and ambiguously avoid using universities’ names. Therefore, cases of Chinese removing the ROC flag and ripping up program guides are still in endless supply.
Since the appearance of the so-called “1992 consensus,” which refers to a tacit understanding between the KMT and the Chinese government that both sides of the Taiwan Strait acknowledge there is “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “China” means, the controversy over National Taiwan University (NTU) starting a program in China under the name “Taiwan University” has still not cooled down. The name “Taiwan University” does not sound bad in a Chinese-language context, but, in English, changing “National Taiwan University” to “Taiwan University” is laughable.
The usage of universities’ English names has increased dramatically ever since China’s economic reform. Under the so-called “1992 consensus,” things in China go in accordance with China’s norms; even if they cannot list the school’s proper name, Taiwanese will still cater to the host institution’s preferences. However, once abroad, both Chinese and Taiwanese institutions have political pressure and must firmly declare their position, causing any event’s cultural elements to be overshadowed by political debate and ultimately harming both sides.
Chu reaffirmed that both sides of the Taiwan Strait are part of “one China” in a bid for additional space in international affairs. Even though the nation was only recognized as “Chinese Taipei” or “Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu,” it is already regarded as normal by the international community, which has a limited understanding of the underlying problem.
However, in the field of cultural exchange, the removal of the national flag and country name makes Taiwanese academics feel as if their affiliated institutions do not exist. Taiwanese participants in international events also lack a sense of belonging. This is not only inhibits a sense of a cross-strait community, but is practically the last nail in the coffin for Taiwanese identity within a so-called “cross-strait symbiosis.”
Chu advises maintaining an attitude of “seeking common ground, while respecting differences” toward China.
However, Xi expressed strong ambitions to “meet on a common platform to minimize differences,” meaning that the issue of the flag is not clear and the problem regarding the country name is unsolved.
The intended goodwill of the “1992 consensus” cannot produce a concrete consensus in practice and could even lead to an increase in false expectations on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. This does not require commentators to frantically drop harsh criticism.
When the time comes, it can be presumed that “three middles and the youth” will severely lash out at any suppression of their identity, leading to an opportunity to release their internalized anti-Chinese sentiments.
Shih Chih-yu is a professor of political science at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Zane Kheir
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.