Imagine what would happen if Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Central Standing Committee member Sean Lien (連勝文) invited you for a cup of tea in his apartment in The Palace in Taipei. Now imagine that, instead of standing on ceremony like a normal guest, you insisted that the meeting could only go ahead if he agreed that the luxury apartment actually belonged to you. No matter how much of a gentleman Lien may be, he would probably raise his middle finger and tell you in no uncertain terms to get lost.
That is the attitude that Chen Deming (陳德銘), chairman of China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits, displayed when responding to an invitation from the Straits Exchange Foundation.
Chen insisted that if Taiwan did not recognize the “one China” principle, it would mean that he was visiting Taiwan as a foreigner, in which case he could not possibly accept the invitation.
Chen qualified “one China” with the words “separately ruled,” but consider his logic. Chen thinks that if Taiwan does not accept “one China,” that would mean he was from another country. In that case he would still be a foreigner whether he comes to Taiwan or not — unless he applied for Republic of China citizenship.
Taiwan does not belong to China, nor are Taiwan and China affiliated with one another. Legal principles and facts both attest to that.
Minister of Foreign Affairs David Lee (李大維) said that cross-strait relations are not diplomatic relations and he is quite right, because diplomatic relations can only be established by mutual agreement, not to mention that, under the existing system, cross-strait affairs are the remit not of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but of the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC).
MAC Minister Katherine Chang (張小月) said that “cross-strait relations are cross-strait relations.”
Although that is a rather vague statement, it is also quite right, because although there are civil, commercial and cultural exchanges between the two sides, there are no political or official relations between them.
China is always trying to find ways to establish political relations under which Taiwan belongs to China. Taiwan, on the other hand, wants to establish equal relations between two nations, one on each side of the Taiwan Strait, with neither of them belonging to the other. This is where the two sides disagree.
Most Taiwanese, as well President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration, cannot accept the condition that Taiwan belongs to China.
In response, China has found various ways to meddle in Taiwan’s domestic policies. For example, it invited eight mayors and county commissioners from Taiwan — six from the KMT and two KMT-friendly “pan blue” independents — to visit China in September last year and offered special incentives to their cities and counties.
Another tactic is to require universities and colleges that have student exchange deals with China to sign a letter of agreement promising that they will not teach prospective Chinese students content that contravenes the “one China” principle.
Chen is being rather arrogant. What could have motivated him to get so out of line? Perhaps he was on the list to be purged if he did not.
The government might not be in a position to give Chen the middle finger or tell China where to stick its crafty plots, but ordinary Taiwanese who cherish freedom and democracy can speak their minds more freely.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Julian Clegg
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS