In a recent speech marking the seventh anniversary of Chinese President Jiang Zemin's (江澤民) "Eight Points," Vice Premier Qian Qichen (錢其琛) said China would welcome visits by DPP members in "appropriate capacities." DPP Secretary-General Wu Nai-jen (吳乃仁) welcomed Qian's remarks, while Chang Jung-kung (張榮恭), deputy chief of the KMT's policy committee, said it was part of China's "united front" discourse. The fact that the KMT and DPP have both changed their attitudes toward China shows the power of Beijing's "united front" strategy.
In the past, China ignored the DPP and worked instead on the KMT. The KMT caught a "China fever" while the DPP stood firm on its "localization" stance. Now China has turned its "united front" warfare against the DPP.
One day after he had welcomed Qian's remark, however, Wu said that the DPP was not in a hurry to organize a group to visit China, indicating that he had not got carried away.
We must recognize that these remarks of Qian's carried some significance and a degree of innovation. First, Hu Jintao (
Second, neither Hu's nor Qian's remarks included any public military threats against Taiwan.
Third, Hu said that the DPP and "Taiwan independence," are not the same things, while Qian made his remark that DPP mem-bers are welcome to visit China in "appropriate capacities."
We should also note, however, that China's basic stance has not changed at all. Even the "degree of innovation" in Qian's speech is still vague. Caution is in order before any response is made. We must remember that one of China's "united front" strategies is to try to win over some in order to attack the rest; to sow discord, in other words. China's attempts to divide Taiwan by wooing the opposition parties and attacking the DPP have failed, as evidenced by the December elections. Now it is trying to lure some DPP members in order to attack other DPP members. It is also trying to lure the DPP to attack the Taiwan Solidarity Union and divide public opinion.
In Beijing's new articulation of its position, does the reality of the ROC's independent existence constitute "Taiwan independence"? If it does not, then why hasn't Beijing recognized the ROC's existence? Without clarity on the concepts of unification and independence, one cannot interpret what exactly Beijing means when it says the DPP does not entirely stand for Taiwan independence.
There has been no change in Beijing's "one China" principle. It remains a precondition for talks -- the biggest point of contention between the two sides.
Qian also claimed that the two sides reached a consensus in 1992 that they should state separately and orally: "Both sides uphold the one China principle." Records clearly show, however, that former vice chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS),Tang Shubei (唐樹備), and Secretary-General Zhang Jincheng (張金成) -- as well as other Beijing figures speaking on condition of anonymity -- all denied that any consensus was ever reached on "one China, with each side making its own interpretation" (一中各表). On Aug. 4, 1999, they even said, "The ARATS has never recognized, nor will it ever accept, the so-called `one China, with each side making its own interpretation' fabricated by the Taiwan authorities."
If Beijing really wants to show goodwill, there should be fewer speeches, a re-opening of communication channels between ARATS and the Straits Exchange Foundation and a resumption of contact and negotiations on substantive issues.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS