The accidental launch of a Hsiung Feng III missile by the Republic of China (ROC) Navy on July 1 has thrown society into an uproar and further damaged already frosty cross-strait relations.
“The implications of this incident are extremely serious,” China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Minister Zhang Zhijun (張志軍) said. “Taiwan must assume responsibility and provide an explanation for what has happened.”
In a later statement, Zhang said: “The individuals in charge still do not understand the situation,” adding that the missile was aimed at China, yet Taiwan, in the first instance, informed another party of the incident.
Zhang’s comments expressed a doubt that is shared by people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as neighboring Asia-Pacific nations.
As President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said: “The incident should absolutely not have happened.”
Unfortunately, it did.
The Tsai administration has been in power for less than two months, but the military has already committed a succession of mistakes that has seriously damaged the nation’s image and revealed systemic failure in the military that nearly set off a cross-strait crisis.
The endless dispute over the selection of a defense minister has led to low morale and a relaxation of discipline in the military, which has caused a series of accidents and mistakes. This is what former National Security Council deputy secretary-general Chen Chung-hsin (陳忠信) meant when he said that a “silent national security crisis” is under way.
Political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) did not mince his words either, asking how Tsai would feel if China had accidentally fired a missile or dropped a bomb in the direction of Taiwan.
He said that Tsai should send an emissary to Beijing to provide an explanation and an apology, which might help repair cross-strait relations and prevent similar misunderstandings in the future.
The same water that conveys a boat also contains the power to sink it, and the tide of public opinion ebbs and flows like the sea. Tsai’s honeymoon has come to an end, and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which used to ingratiate itself with the public while in opposition, has now turned from being the accuser to being the accused.
The government’s approval rating is gradually being eaten away. Not only does the public lack trust in the military, the word on the street is that the government is facing a crisis of governance and trust.
Only a nation that is internally stable will be able to resist foreign aggression. Resisting an aggressor certainly does not mean dispatching troops or firing missiles willy-nilly; rather, it pertains to the government’s ability to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
The key question is whether Tsai’s national security team will be able to turn the crisis caused by the missile incident into an opportunity to strengthen mutual trust between Taipei and Beijing and reopen regular cross-strait communication channels.
Not only would this reduce the pressure on diplomacy and on Taiwan’s participation in international economic and trade organizations, it would also serve to thaw the frosty relationship with China, which has been on ice since the Tsai administration took over on May 20.
Since Zhang has already said that his government is unhappy with the way Taiwan has dealt with the situation, Tsai’s administration should take specific actions, such as sending a representative to Beijing to provide a full explanation and dispel any misgivings in China resulting from the incident.
If an apology is considered the appropriate thing to do, then it should be made. Such a response would help give weight to the sincerity of Tsai’s repeated assurances when she was still in opposition that she would respect the ROC Constitution, the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the ROC (中華民國憲法增修條文) and the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例).
Furthermore, Tsai has said that her government’s cross-strait approach would follow a policy of “no provocation, zero surprises and more communication.”
If Tsai is true to her word, not only would no harm be caused to the dignity of her office as president, but it would show her in a positive light as a powerful leader, striving to improve peaceful relations with China.
One of the key themes of Tsai’s inaugural address was that her administration would conduct cross-strait relations in accordance with the ROC Constitution, while she also reaffirmed the historical fact of the 1992 talks and understandings reached through a series of high-level cross-strait meetings between Taiwan and China.
The essence of Tsai’s remarks accord with the so-called “1992 consensus” — seen as important by Beijing — and even more so with the spirit of the Constitution.
The essential meaning of “one China” is obvious in the Constitution, and the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the ROC and the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area also clearly define the two sides as “the mainland area” and the “Taiwan area.”
Furthermore, unification with China has not yet taken place, but the essential meaning of “one China” is obvious; and the only discrepancy between the two sides is the qualifier that each side of the Taiwan Strait has its own interpretation of what “China” means.
If Tsai were able to use this incident to make the argument that Taiwan and China should not view each other as hostile enemies, but rather as brothers of the same race, and if she could use this as an opportunity to hold talks with Beijing on how to build a new cross-strait mechanism based on mutual trust that could bring an end to cross-strait hostilities and the signing of a peace agreement, which would in turn bring a peaceful and happy future for both sides of the Taiwan Strait, then the implied meaning of the “1992 consensus” would become an unquestionable reality.
Of course, these aims cannot be achieved overnight. Nevertheless, the government might be able to turn this cross-strait crisis into an opportunity to further peace on the Taiwan Strait. Whether this will be possible is entirely in the hands of the president.
Shu Chin-chiang is a senior consultant to the National Policy Foundation and a former senior adviser to the National Security Council.
Translated by Edward Jones
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