While many have condemned the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) — whose presidential candidate, Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), is considered a shoo-in in the presidential election in January — for a lack of action against what it calls President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) undemocratic decision to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), Tsai is certainly right that Ma has foisted a political framework upon democratic Taiwan and its people.
The statement Ma gave before the doors closed on the meeting on Saturday was written beforehand and the Central News Agency (CNA) posted it online right after Ma finished his brief talk. However, it was curious that the words “one China principle,” uttered by Ma, were not included in CNA’s copy.
Speculations abounded, including that CNA calculatingly removed it, but the most likely version of events, based on revelations later made by the president of a think tank that helped to arrange the meeting, was that Ma’s addition was an impromptu one.
It was revealed that the two sides had agreed beforehand that in the televized portion of the meeting neither of the leaders would utter “sensitive phrases.”
For Xi that would be “the two sides belong to the same China,” “one China,” or “against Taiwanese independence;” for Ma it would be the “respective interpretations” of the so-called “1992 consensus.”
Xi talked about the two sides of the Taiwan Strait being the same Chinese ethnic nation (zhonghua minzu), but “one China” was not brought up.
Ma, probably to the surprise of his aides, decided to champion the “one China principle” in Xi’s stead, which he and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) have — until Saturday’s meeting, that is — touted as a clever gambit for its “ambiguity” by attaching “one China, with different interpretations.”
The Ma-Xi meeting allowed Ma to send out a misguided message to the world that Taiwan agrees that cross-strait ties are the “Chinese people’s own business” and the Taiwan-China relationship is a “domestic one,” as announced later by China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Minister Zhang Zhijun (張志軍).
There is little doubt that Xi, by agreeing to meet with Ma in the final months of his presidency, was exploiting Ma’s desperation to establish a “legacy” and targeting Tsai.
Xi has said that “the [Taiwan] problem cannot be passed from generation to generation,” indicating he has strong intentions to break the “status quo” during his 10-year term. With the KMT likely to be absent from the corridors of power for the next four or even eight years, the “bridge” set by the Ma-Xi meeting is likely to be a roadblock to Tsai’s cross-strait policy.
Thanks to Ma, there can be no ambiguity about the “1992 consensus” anymore, despite its low support rating with the public. It is no longer a KMT-Chinese Communist Party agreement; Ma has chained the KMT’s spiraling fate to Taiwan’s future.
Cross-strait exchanges have become a zero-sum game in which the next president would have to either walk the “bridge” or risk being accused of breaking the “status quo.”
The new development also sows the seeds of strong polarization in Taiwan.
The KMT is now less a defender of the Republic of China than a proponent of the “one China principle.” By equating the Republic of China with “China,” which the rest of the world recognizes as the People’s Republic of China, Ma and the KMT have given up the “Republic of China/Taiwan” rhetoric and forced a political dichotomy on the nation that has until now been deliberately kept obscure.
It is understandable that Xi is indifferent about, or might even benefit from, the possible chaos this would cause in Taiwan, but Ma?
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