In his policy report to the Communist Party of China's (CCP) 16th National Congress, Jiang Zemin (
"We can discuss putting an official end to cross-strait animosity, we can discuss tolerance for international economic, cultural and social activities of the Taiwan region commensurate with its status and we can also discuss the political status of the Taiwan authorities."
However, he also reiterated the old slogan that "the `one country, two systems' model is the best method for realizing cross-strait unification," warning that "a solution to the Taiwan issue cannot be postponed indefinitely," and that he will "definitely not promise to give up the option of armed invasion of Taiwan."
Although this unificationist language will not enable him to win the hearts of the Taiwanese people, his methods are becoming increasingly adaptable, flexible and pragmatic. This fact must not be ignored, and calls for caution by Taiwanese.
Even though Jiang will withdraw gradually from the political arena following the 16th National Congress, his influence will continue to guide the CCP's direction. It should therefore not be inferred that his report on China's Taiwan policies was one of old directions and a summary of old policies. Rather it was a turning point implying continuity in that he specified more flexible tactics for cross-strait unification.
All China-leaning media and politicians in Taiwan interpret his Taiwan talk as a display of "goodwill," and there have even been calls for the government to grasp this opportunity to initiate cross-strait dialogue. Jiang's talk, however, contains neither new thinking nor goodwill.
President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was right when he said that "if we accept the `one China' principle and the `one country, two systems' model, Taiwan will become a `special administrative region' just like Hong Kong, and we will no longer have an ROC president. Beijing will appoint a chief executive who can be recalled at any time. Jiang does not have the faintest idea what we are thinking. He places no importance in democracy, and pays no attention to public opinion."
Jiang's talk is devoid of both new thinking and goodwill, but rather contains the hegemonist and authoritarian attitudes of a large, chauvinist nation. The only difference is that the wrapping is nicer and that the application of tactics is more flexible.
For the first time, Jiang has mentioned the "three issues open to discussion" and included a tripartite theory -- "there is only `one China' in the world, the mainland and Taiwan belong to the same China, and China's sovereignty and territorial integrity is indivisible" -- in official documentation. It is absolutely preposterous how unificationists interpret this as "goodwill."
Strategies change with time, and despite some changes in method, the goals and principles of China's Taiwan policies -- whether the policy to liberate Taiwan during the early nation-building period or the current `one country, two systems' policy -- remain the same, namely "one China."
"One China" means the People's Republic of China. Once Taiwan accepts this principle as a pre-condition for cross-strait negotiations, Taiwan will become part of China, and cease to be a sovereign, independent state. Even if China says that "anything is open to discussion", how could such negotiations, aimed at eliminating Taiwan's status as a sovereign nation, be acceptable to the people of Taiwan?
All of this so-called "goodwill" coming out of China recently has been nothing but tricks in the war for unification. Let's use the "three issues open to discussion" as an example.
First of all, we have "putting an official end to cross-strait animosity." At first glance, it seems China is willing to give up its threat to use military force against Taiwan. This is not the reality. Not only is China unwilling to promise to give up verbal threats of military force, but she has also acted to reinforce the deployment of arms aimed at Taiwan.
China's policy of armed invasion of Taiwan is best illustrated by the 400 missiles aimed at Taiwan. What's more, even if cross-strait negotiations could bring an end to cross-strait animosity, it would not happen as a result of goodwill from China.
Taiwan's period of martial law and its period of mobilization against communists ended a long time ago, it no longer sees the CCP as a group of rebels, and it recognizes that ROC rule no longer extends to the Chinese mainland. This means that Taiwan, on its own initiative, already has ended its hostility against China.
The reason cross-strait animosity cannot come to an end is therefore to be found in China and not in Taiwan. All that is needed for an end to cross-strait animosity is for China to abandon its policy of reserving the right to use armed force against Taiwan. What else is there to talk about?
Second is "tolerance for international economic, cultural and social activities of the Taiwan region commensurate with its status." Taiwan already is a sovereign nation.
The fact that Taiwan does not have the leeway it should to act in the international arena is a result of China's unreasonable suppression.
China is doing its utmost to suppress Taiwan internationally. It won't even leave Taiwan with a way out when it comes to the non-political World Health Organization, something that affects the health and well-being of 23 million Taiwanese, yet it wants to offer the luxury of discussing leeway for Taiwan to act on the international arena? This is hypocrisy.
Finally, there is "discussing the political status of the Taiwan authorities." This is another absurdly ridiculous offer. Taiwan is a sovereign and independent democracy called the Republic of China. This is fact.
The Taiwanese government is a legal, democratically elected government. Why should the government of a democracy discuss "political status" with an authoritarian dictatorship? Only colonies such as Hong Kong and Macau are obliged to discuss "political status" with great powers.
Jiang's proposal to discuss the political status of the Taiwan authorities is clearly meant to transform the people of Taiwan from masters of their own nation to servants of a regime, and such a suggestion obviously belittles Taiwan. How can unificationists in Taiwan call this goodwill?
The inability of Taiwan and China to get along peacefully has an impact on economic development on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and it will also have an impact on peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region.
The two sides should therefore initiate dialogue in an attempt to resolve this tense situation. However, to lay the foundation for negotiations based on equality, mutual respect rather than the "one China" principle should be the precondition for cross-strait dialogue.
China's stubborn adherence to the "one China" principle is obviously aimed at restraining Taiwan. Once Taiwan is fettered down by the "one China" principle, it will become part of the Chinese dictatorship.
If we then continue to discuss "bringing an end to animosity," "tolerance for international action" and "the political status of the Taiwan authorities," Taiwan doubtless will become a second Hong Kong.
Since Hong Kong became a special administrative region of China, political freedom has been increasingly restricted, unemployment has risen even more and the economy has declined.
We must task ourselves how likely it is that the people of Taiwan would be taken in by Jiang's words and thereby walk down the same road that has led Hong Kong into decline.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS