A delegation sent by the New Party to China has recently returned. Exchanges across the Taiwan Strait are generally desirable, even though China takes advantage of the opportunities they present to launch "united front" propaganda offensives against Taiwan. As long as one has faith in one's beliefs, there is no need to fear China's strategy, and it may even be possible to carry out a counter-offensive. The problem is that one must be clear about one's own beliefs before one can stand firmly on principle and avoid being "united" by China at the expense of the interests of the people and the nation.
The two biggest pieces of news to come out of the New Party's trip were its reaching of a consensus with China on six points and China's Vice Premier Qian Qichen's (
Given the New Party's unificationist platform, their support for the "one China" principle is understandable. The problem is that the party also professes to support Taiwan, but lacking any clause that "each side has its own interpretation," the meaning of their six-point consensus can easily be distorted by China.
The most problematic part of the consensus is the declaration that, "both sides agree that the people on either side of the Taiwan Strait are all Chinese and the Taiwanese people, regardless of their provincial origin, should interact amicably with each other."
Taiwan's internal problems should be settled by the people of Taiwan themselves. Why should they be turned over to Beijing? Isn't this inviting trouble and saying that Beijing has the authority to interfere in Taiwan's internal affairs? If this item stands, then one China carries a connotation of Beijing having jurisdiction over Taiwan. It implies that the one China is the PRC, and that even the high degree of autonomy provided by one country, two systems can't be achieved.
The most ridiculous aspect of this element of the consensus lies in the question of whether China's minority peoples, such as the Tibetans and Uighurs, are "Chinese." There are issues of provincial origin and also of ethnicity at stake here. Could it be that these peoples don't have to "interact amicably" with other "Chinese" peoples?
Ever since the late president Chiang Ching-kuo (
Looking at China, however, we see that the authorities do not wear silk gloves in their suppression of separatist movements arising from ethnic conflicts. In mid-May, for example, the New China News Agency, the official mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), quoted Meng Deli (
There is also frequent news of executions of Uighurs in Xin-jiang, all the more so during the last few months of Beijing's "Strike Hard" crackdown on crime and separatists.
Recently, there have been fights between Han (
There are obviously more problems in China regarding friendly relations between ethnic groups and even the pluralization of faiths, so why doesn't the New Party reach an agreement with the CCP on these issues? A relationship in which we let China interfere in Taiwan's domestic politics without Taiwan interfering in China's is an unequal one, with Taiwan willingly accepting an inferior position, giving up its sovereignty.
Qian's seven-point statement about "one country, two systems" is nothing new. It has all been said before, and some of it is even a retreat from earlier positions. For example, the then president of China, Li Xiannian (
If we look at the situation in Hong Kong, we see that China's promises are not to be trusted. A Hong Kong ruled by Hong Kong people is in fact a Hong Kong ruled by Hong Kong traitors, doing the things that the CCP is afraid of doing themselves.
When territory's chief executive Tung Chee-hwa (
The Hong Kong Legislative Council, controlled by "patriots," recently passed regulations for the election of the chief executive that were proposed by the Special Administrative Region government. In so doing, they voluntarily expanded Beijing's control over the territory by adding articles originally not in the Basic Law, allowing Beijing to recall the chief executive
whenever it wants.
The New Party's transmission of Qian's seven-point statement is also an unequal, one-way, united front offensive. Since Taiwan has a free media and freedom of speech, the party is free to pass on Qian's words. The sweet-talking of the CCP will undoubtedly influence those people who lack an understanding of the communists, leading to divisions of which China will take advantage.
The New Party did not use the strong points of Taiwan's democracy to put pressure on China, but simply expressed hopes for a democratic and wealthy China in an off-handed manner. Their talk of China's economic development being affected if she takes to arms has all been censored, and the Chinese people hear nothing of it. There is no way that Taiwan will be able to launch its own "united front" offensive against the Chinese people through cross-strait exchanges. We can only sit back and listen to the Chinese message. This kind of exchange only makes the New Party a megaphone for the CCP, and this is probably something that most New Party members don't wish to see either.
I once exchanged views with some friends in the New Party. They said that they opposed both Taiwan independence and the Chinese communists. Considering this most recent exchange, though, they are only opposing Taiwanese independence and not the communists. Why isn't their opposition to independence also an opposition to dictatorship? Supporters of the party loudly sang, "China will surely be strong," when Beijing won the right to host the 2008 Olympic Games.
I'm afraid that Taiwan will be swallowed up by a China that is strong, but also undemocratic and without fairly distributed wealth. This will not be to the benefit of the Chinese people.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Ethan Harkness and Perry Svensson
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS