On the 40th anniversary of the so-called “Message to Compatriots in Taiwan,” Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sent a stern message to Taiwanese that their unification with China is inevitable, almost like the cycle of seasons, and that the “one country, two systems” framework would be the basis of such an eventuality. He also reiterated the use of military force if Beijing deemed it necessary.
Xi received a clear and straightforward response from President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), who said that “Taiwan will never accept the concept of ‘one country, two systems.’”
Tsai also challenged Xi to have some courage and follow the path of democracy to understand what Taiwanese really aspire to.
It is nothing new that China wants to unify with Taiwan; it is also a common understanding that the latter does not want to give up its status as a thriving democracy.
However, what Xi and Tsai made crystal clear to each other and the world is how wide the gap between the Middle Kingdom and the island democracy is.
The divergences between Beijing and Taipei are multiple, and the space for a convergence is shrinking under former’s belligerent assertions.
One of the most conspicuous is the gap in the political development of the two sides; while Taiwan was able to create a liberal democracy along with its economic miracle, China has remained stagnant under the same authoritarian system, despite its economic success.
The existence of Taiwan — a Confucian society with a flourishing liberal democracy — is an international embarrassment for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which passionately argues that Chinese culture and values are too different to be compatible with liberal democracy.
Taiwan’s democratic success ridicules such narratives and proves the theory wrong. This is the last thing Beijing wants and it seems to make the regime more impatient to unify with Taiwan.
The CCP’s rising authoritarianism under Xi, with more political control and ideological conformity, makes any future unification with China less desirable for Taiwanese.
The democratization of Taiwan had also resulted in a paradigm shift in the identity of the nation, where more people identify as Taiwanese instead of Chinese.
This means that Xi’s New Year message of belonging to one Chinese family could ring hollow, if not threatening, to Taiwanese.
An open letter addressed to Xi by Taiwan’s Aborigines clearly expressed their aversion to his message.
Although Xi’s proposal of a “one country, two systems” model has categorically been rejected by Tsai, it is still seen as important to assess how many people in Taiwan are likely to buy into it. The greatest problem for the Chinese authorities is more than their Orwellian system, it is their abysmal track record regarding promises they made to different groups, such as Tibet and Hong Kong.
In this context, it is necessary to review how people who joined the People’s Republic of China (PRC) are faring today.
To begin with, Tibet became a part of the PRC under the 17 Point Agreement which was signed under duress in Beijing on May 23, 1951. Among other things, the Chinese government agreed to uphold the existing political system in Tibet, including the status of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan way of life, and protect the region’s religion and monasteries.
However, once its control was established, Beijing took an aggressive U-turn on the terms of the agreement by dismantling Tibet’s entire political and social structure, and destroying more than 6,000 monasteries and nunneries.
When Xi said China would respect Taiwan’s way of life, and protect its religious beliefs and other legitimate interests of the public, it is impossible not to wonder whether Taiwanese know that similar assurances were made to Tibetans six decades ago.
Luckily in their letter, Taiwanese Aborigines made it clear that they know the Tibetans and Uighurs face cultural ethnocide under the PRC.
Likewise, the regional autonomy promised to Mongolians, Tibetans and Uighurs remains to be implemented according to the letter of the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law of China. The gap between their autonomy on paper and what is in practice today is as different as the seas and mountains.
While Tibet and other cases could be useful to prove how much Taiwanese can trust Xi’s offer of a “one country, two systems” solution, Hong Kong’s story is more relevant.
When Hong Kong was handed over to China, it was promised a high degree of autonomy with an independent judiciary, executive and legislature powers, and eventually the right to elect its chief executive by universal suffrage.
However, in 2014, Beijing made it clear that it was only interested in keeping its point man in the top position, rather than someone selected through a free and fair election.
The “Umbrella movement” that ensued was an expression of Hong Kongers’ unhappiness, but Beijing’s response to the democratic rallies in the territory was indicative of its distaste for a democratic Hong Kong.
The territory’s democratic space dwindled over the years with attacks on journalists, kidnappings of book sellers and bans on elected leaders.
Despite Xi’s new promises, it will be the realities of the old promises the CCP regime failed to uphold elsewhere, be it in Tibet or Hong Kong, that will hold water. Therefore, it is likely that Xi’s proposition of unification based on a “one country, two systems” framework will be seen by Taiwanese as a pretext for ultimate domination.
Given the deep political rift between the two sides, unification on the basis of a “one country, two systems” policy looks unlikely, unless it is imposed on Taiwan by force. However, any military adventure across the Taiwan Strait has a high risk of snowballing into an international crisis involving the US and that would not be beneficial to the concerned parties.
A new proposal to cross-strait peace suggests that instead of “one country, two systems,” the two sides solve the issue under a “one civilization, two states” framework by putting people, not political powers or regimes, at the center as the main determinant of the peace process.
This is simply to accept and change the de facto status of Taiwan to a de jure reality, as it is practically a functioning state. While this would be great for Taiwan in pursuit of its interests, China would also gain as it would significantly reduce the former’s dependence on the US, thereby minimizing the US’ influence in the region’s security.
Under the principle of “one civilization,” the two states could cooperate on the development and promotion of their shared culture through movies, music, literature, arts and history. This could also be useful for fostering and sustaining friendship between the people of both nations.
Such a peaceful outcome would likely be more conducive to the realization of China’s “national rejuvenation” than war cries and domination.
However, to accept such a political framework, there must be political wisdom and moral courage. Unfortunately, these features do not seem to be a great strength of the CCP regime. While it makes a show of power through its assertive foreign policy, its recent political and ideological suppressions at home reflect insecurity.
An authoritarian system not confident about its future and mortally apprehensive about different points of view is likely to find it hard to imagine a people-based approach to conflict resolution.
Palden Sonam is a China Research Programme researcher at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in Delhi, India.
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
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
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.