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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS