Against the backdrop of a China-bug-infected feverish Taiwan, the "four-nation meeting," brought up by former president Lee Tung-hwei (
The biggest obstacle is, of course, China. But the situation may not be as hopeless as most people might assume.
One of the basic realities is that China and Taiwan can never engage in productive direct talks because of an imbalance in strength. China will always have the urge to flex its muscles while Taiwan suffers a continuous lack of confidence to assert itself.
It's also dangerous for the two to talk directly after China's enactment of the "Anti-Secession" Law because what happens in the talks may "force China to conclude that all hopes for unification have been exhausted." The talks can then actually precipitate a military attack on Taiwan by China.
Therefore, any talks initiated by Taiwan now would be nothing more than surrender. In the case where China were to initiate the talks, Taiwan would have no alternative but to insist as a pre-condition that China repeals all references to "non-peaceful means" in its "law." None of these are probable in the current atmosphere.
One then has to conclude that only a multi-nation conference holds any reasonable probability of solving the impasse peacefully.
A multi-nation conference can be held periodically and ends only when a peaceful outcome is achieved. It can last months or even years. While the talks are ongoing, the chance for military confrontation is diminished. In contrast, direct talks between Taiwan and China can at any time cause a war just because of non-progress.
In addition, no pre-condition is needed here. That means China doesn't have to renounce its "non-peaceful means" before entering into the talks, thereby removing a thorny obstacle.
Unfortunately, the four-nation conference is a non-starter under present conditions.
The foremost issue is that China does not recognize Taiwan as a country. While formally neither do the US and Japan, they most likely wouldn't mind being seated at the same conference table with Taiwan as long as China doesn't object. But it's inconceivable that China would now agree to sitting down with Taiwan in the company of the US and Japan.
The idea of three-plus-one-nation talks, on the other hand, holds some promise.
Under this concept, the conference will be attended by China, the US and Japan with Taiwan as the observer. Taiwan can only channel its positions and ideas through the US or Japan. The conference can last indefinitely. Any arrangements agreed upon in the conference regarding Taiwan's future status would have to be approved by the Taiwanese people through one or a series of referendums.
In order to arrive at that point, there are hurdles to cross.
First of all, China will have to be convinced that the cross-strait issue is international in nature. There are signs that, to some degree, China might already have conceded this.
In the last couple of years, it was the US' help China would solicit to rein in Taiwan's democracy. Then, in February of this year, when Japan joined the US in announcing that the Taiwan Strait is a region of "mutual security concern," China didn't protest.
The most telling sign can be found in China's Anti-Secession Law. Since the law refers to the use of force as the last resort, it then follows that, once it was promulgated, China in practicality removed any chance for direct talks between Taiwan and China, leaving an international meeting as the only vehicle for a peaceful conclusion.
Secondly, there must be an incentive to hold the meeting. Presumably none of the three conferees would like to see a military conflict in the region if it can be avoided. Regional peace then emerges as the common incentive for all three.
Third, the US and China must have the tacit agreement to de-link this meeting from that of the North Korea's nuclear armament, lest the cross-strait issue become a bargaining chip in their western Pacific regional power struggle.
Sitting at the confluence of the US' Taiwan Relations Act, China's Anti-Secession Law and the mutual concern of the US-Japan Security Alliance, the cross-strait issue demands to be resolved jointly -- and peacefully -- by those nations that have much to gain -- or lose.
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at a ceremony on July 30 officially commissioned China’s BeiDou-3 satellite navigation system. The constellation of satellites, which is now fully operational, was completed six months ahead of schedule. Its deployment means that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is now in possession of an autonomous, global satellite navigation system to rival the US’ GPS, Russia’s Glonass and the EU’s Galileo. Although Chinese officials have repeatedly sought to reassure the world that BeiDou-3 is primarily a civilian and commercial platform, US and European military experts beg to differ. Teresa Hitchens, a senior research associate at the University of
There are few areas where Beijing, Taipei, and Washington find themselves in agreement these days, but one of them is that the situation in the Taiwan Strait is growing more dangerous. Such a shared assessment quickly breaks down, though, when the question turns to identifying sources of rising tensions. Several Chinese experts and officials I have consulted with recently have argued that Beijing’s increasingly belligerent behavior in the Taiwan Strait is driven mostly by fear. According to this narrative, Beijing is worried that unless it puts a brake on Taiwan’s move away from the mainland, Taiwan could be “lost” forever. They
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), who died on Thursday last week, coined the phrase “new Taiwanese” and used it in some of his public speeches. The concept of “new Taiwanese” was an important link in the chain of his political thought. Lee proposed the term in August 1998 on the eve of the anniversary of the end of the Pacific War. His intention was to consolidate a common understanding around the idea of “new Taiwanese,” and to embody the Taiwanese spirit of never giving up and not fearing hardship, and to create bright prospects for generations to come. However, after