Late last month, Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits Chairman Chen Deming (陳德銘) said at the Boao Forum that he hoped to visit Taiwan as “an authorized representative from one of two still separately ruled institutions under a single country.”
Chen’s concept of “one country, two administrations” is close to Chinese academic Chu Shulong’s (楚樹龍) “one country, two governments” or Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu’s (洪秀柱) “one China, same interpretation.”
China used to be opposed to “one country, two governments,” calling it a step toward Taiwan abandoning “one China.” Chen’s remarks could be interpreted as Beijing recognizing separate rule of Taiwan and China.
Should President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) respond to Chen’s remarks? Should she follow Beijing’s intentions and recognize that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one country, but without mentioning “one China”?
It is intriguing that Taiwan’s pro-unification media constantly emphasize that “one China” is nonnegotiable, but now “one China” has been replaced by “one country,” along with a proposal of “two administrations.”
Is the policy really not negotiable?
In addition, Chen’s tone when he asked Taiwan to give him a chance to visit was so unfamiliar that he almost did not sound like a communist.
Did pro-unification media not repeatedly warn that “the earth will move and the mountains will shake” if the so-called “1992 consensus” is not accepted? After interaction between Taiwan and China ceased, did Chen’s tone of voice make it sound like the earth was moving and the mountains were shaking?
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) used to insist that the Taiwanese administration was merely a local Chinese government. Beijing now finally recognizing that there is “one country, two administrations” or “one country, two governments” is evidence that the claim that China will attack Taiwan if it insists it is not a local Chinese government is just something the pro-unification camp says.
China is more worried than Taiwan about the two sides going separate ways: China’s worst nightmare would be to see Taiwan pushed toward the US, Japan and South Korea camp. Beijing worries about it, and it worries a lot.
The pro-unification camp says that if Taiwan declares independence, China is sure to attack. Is that true? Despite talk by some retired Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) generals that it could take Taiwan in 100 hours, a war between the two sides would be a life-and-death struggle. Are we sure that it would be Taiwan that would die?
The PLA has not fought a war for decades. If the war does not go as planned — remember the power of the Hsiung Feng III missile that was accidentally on display last year — a small setback for the PLA could cause the Chinese leaders’ political enemies to carry out a coup and cause the CCP leadership to collapse.
CCP leaders are aware of this risk. On the eve of meetings of the Chinese National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference last month, an open letter circulated that made major accusations against Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平).
Xi needs Taiwan just as much as Taiwan needs him. A war is a dangerous thing. Even if China were to succeed in an invasion, counterattacks by Taiwan and its allies would cause the Chinese economy to backtrack 20 years and could even destroy the CCP.
Knowing this, there is no need for Tsai to patiently tolerate Beijing’s every whim. She should just do what needs to be done.
Christian Fan Jiang is a member of the Northern Taiwan Society.
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
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
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry