Last week, a delegation from the Taiwan Affairs Office of China's State Council barraged New York with their united front campaign, engaging in intensive contact with members of US think tanks and the overseas Chinese community.
The team was led by the new deputy director of the Taiwan Affairs Office, Zhou Mingwei (周明偉), who has been the focus of great interest in the outside world. Young and having studied at Harvard University, Zhou is widely believed to represent the "open-minded" faction in the government. Zhou's background is in Shanghai's Taiwan-affairs bureaucracy. He comes from the staff behind Wang Daohan (汪道涵), who has always advocated a moderate policy toward Taiwan. This fact made the outside world even more interested in his views.
However, the tone of Zhou's stand on the Taiwan issue was more strident than anyone had expected. Immediately after arriving in New York, he released a statement emphasizing that "the only alternative to unification between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait is war."
Of course, this line has been promulgated by the Chinese Communist Party all along -- that the unification question will not be allowed to drag on too long.
But given that both the attitude of people in Taiwan and the US policy toward Taiwan are clearly oriented toward "maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait," Zhou's stand shows no moderation or compromise whatsoever. His hardline tone was virtually no different from that of the hawks in the Chinese military.
To a certain extent, Zhou's hardline position contains elements that he has expounded upon himself.
For example, the CCP has made no official statement regarding a possible link between Beijing's bid for the Olympic Games and its Taiwan policy. There even seems to be a dovish bent in some occasional news reports -- which said Beijing might consider holding one or two Olympic events in Taiwan or let the Olympic torch pass through Taipei.
But in New York, Zhou unexpectedly gave an unequivocal answer to this question. "The Olympic Games are not one of the three major tasks facing the country. Regardless of the future international environment, China will correctly face the Taiwan problem. There won't be any changes made due to interference from other countries," he said. This amounts to a definitive announcement that China won't soften its stance for the sake of the Olympics.
Even if Zhou's statements merely reflect Beijing's policy positions and as an official representative he had no choice but to adhere to the party line, officials still have some room for flexibility in their overseas speeches.
If Zhou really desired to show his open-mindedness, he could have found a way. He would only have needed to take a position that left room for discussion on some issues that are still hanging. Or he could have read verbatim from Beijing's book when making hardline policy announcements without chiming in with presentations of his own creation. But Zhou's statements in New York didn't show any open-mindedness whatsoever.
Actually, this isn't strange because young communists are still communists. Their "open-mindedness" has its limits, and it can be abandoned at any time.
Former Shanghai political scholar Wang Huyu (王滬宇) was an active advocate of political reforms in the 1980s. But now, after transforming in a flash into the deputy director of the CCP's Central Policy Research Center and becoming Jiang Zemin's (江澤民) close personal advisor, we no longer see him proposing "political reform."
Beijing scholar Wang Qisi (
Those scholars probably should be counted among the open-minded faction. But this is only relative to Beijing's "conservative faction" and it certainly doesn't mean they can open their minds very far. If anyone still is overly concerned with the shifting positions of the open-minded faction and the conservative faction in Beijing's ordering of personnel, they will be disappointed.
Wang Dan was a student leader during the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations in Beijing. He is currently a graduate student at Harvard University.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS