Regardless of proclaimed objectives, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) set out to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). China’s only purpose was to consolidate the “one China status quo” according to which China and Taiwan belong to “one and the same state.”
This has become particularly important to Xi after the US Navy’s USS Lassen sailed through one of China’s artificial islands in the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島) to challenge Beijing’s sovereignty claim over the entire South China Sea, and to defend Washington’s rights of free navigation in high seas.
The Ma-Xi meeting created a false impression to the world that the Chinese and Taiwanese leaders were jointly safeguarding “Chinese sovereignty” based on the similar historical U-shaped lines in the South China Sea.
Although the Ma administration might respond by saying that the two sides are separately safeguarding their own sovereignty, such a response would hardly distinguish the Taiwanese claim from the Chinese one.
The timing also explained why Xi, who was reluctant to meet the unpopular Ma before, took the initiative and played the Taiwan card at a time of Sino-US confrontation.
The problem is that if Xi really was playing the Taiwan card, then their meeting would appear to the world that strategically and geopolitically, the Taiwanese government is choosing China, rather than the US. This strategic choice should not be made hastily without consulting the public through the democratic process, as it involves the nation’s survival and future development.
It should be noted that Xi once said that the problem regarding the unification of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait “cannot be passed on from generation to generation.”
If Ma did not mention his “no unification policy” during the meeting, others might be suspicious of Ma recognizing the goal of “eventual unification.”
Moreover, since the false impression that the two sides belong to “one and the same China state” set by Xi has already taken shape, and endorsed by Ma’s interpretation of the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution, there was no need for the two to sign an agreement or issue any joint statement after their meeting. The timing of the meeting and the two national leaders’ status at the event said it all.
Although their titles seemed equal on the surface, they would like to be called and seen as leaders from two areas of “one China.” However, given that the meeting took place in connection to Xi’s state visit to Singapore, it shows that in the international community, Xi is the one who represents “one China.”
Of course, Ma might well argue and explain to the US that the purpose of his trip was to consolidate cross-strait peace and maintain the “status quo,” and that Taiwan would not cooperate with China in the South China Sea against the US.
He could even argue that their meeting would help constrain the possible cross-strait options if Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is elected in January.
However, in the eyes of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), as long as Ma and Xi reached a common understanding on what constitutes the “status quo,” Tsai, who has proposed that the “status quo” be maintained, would then be forced to maintain their “status quo.”
Therefore, the effect of the Ma-Xi meeting on the January presidential and legislative elections will be that Tsai will be forced to clarify whether and how she will maintain the “status quo” that Ma and Xi have laid down.
Such a move would not necessarily hurt the US’ interests. If the sensitive issue of Taiwan’s status was not mentioned during the meeting, the US might be pleased to see some good results such as Tsai inheriting a channel for cross-strait dialogue and executing the cross-strait agreements.
However, as a democracy, the US might be wondering why Ma, who is stepping down next year, does not allow the public to decide Taiwan’s future through the Jan. 16 election.
David Huang is an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with