One of the reasons Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) won the presidential election is a considerable number of voters saw him as separate from former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰). Behind Lien stands not only the remnants of the KMT’s old guard, but also Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) “one China” principle.
China let Lien walk down the red carpet when he visited in 2005, and Hu signed a joint communique with him, but this didn’t mean that China liked this perpetual loser; it only meant that Beijing hoped to bring the joint efforts of the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) back on track once the KMT returned to power.
Ma has not yet taken office, but already he is being tested.
At the Boao forum last weekend, vice president-elect Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) issued a “16-word statement,” proposing that the two sides “face reality, take sight of the future, shelve disputes and pursue a win-win scenario.”
Hu said he completely agreed. But where does this “16-word statement” come from?
The first part is from the joint communique signed by Hu and Lien when Lien visited China to endorse the “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005. The “face reality, take sight of the future” part is there because Lien, at the time of his visit, had lost two consecutive presidential elections. It was therefore impossible that the Taiwanese government would tolerate the “one China” component of the “Anti-Secession” Law.
Thus, the only option was to join hands with the CCP to block Taiwanese independence and wait until the KMT returned to power. Only then could the two parties begin to cooperate and set their sights on a future “one China.” By using this line from Lien and Hu’s joint communique, Siew showed that he wants to continue Lien’s line and reassure Hu.
The last part of the statement is the creation of Siew and Ma themselves. “Shelve disputes” means concentrating on “one China,” but leaving aside “different interpretations” of what the expression means.
This contradicts statements that Ma made during the presidential election campaign. During the second debate between the two candidates, Ma said: “The ‘1992 consensus’ is ‘one China, different interpretations,’” and that “‘one China’ means ‘the Republic of China.’” But now, “1992 consensus” is taken to mean “one China, with no interpretations” and the term “Republic of China” (ROC) will not be heard outside Taiwan. Naturally Hu was very happy when he heard this, and of course he said that he agreed.
“Pursue a win-win scenario” is simply deceptive language.
Didn’t Ma say that China and Taiwan should take a position of “mutual non-denial?” This expression meant that Hu could interpret China as being the People’s Republic of China, and Ma wouldn’t deny this; Ma meanwhile could interpret China as the ROC, and Hu wouldn’t deny this.
But the reality is different. Hu talks about his interpretation to the whole world, and in the eyes of the world China equals communist China. Ma could only express his interpretation of “one China” being the ROC within Taiwan during the election campaign, but now that he has been elected, he will presumably “shelve the dispute” if he leaves the country and avoids talking about his own interpretation. Is this mutual non-denial? Is this pursuing a win-win scenario?
Although Ma has not yet taken office, he has offered Hu this statement through his vice president and taken a first step down the same road as Lien, a dangerous road that will make Taiwan part of “one China.”
The next step will be personnel selection and concrete action after Ma and Siew take office, so the remnants of the KMT party-state system and “one China” forces under China’s thumb are preparing to move.
They are plotting to have Su Chi (蘇起) — the architect of Lien and Hu’s KMT-CCP communication platform — appointed secretary-general of the National Security Council. Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) has already been named as director of the Straits Exchange Foundation. This would give these people full control of and the ability to integrate Taiwan’s military diplomacy, national security and China strategy in keeping with Lien’s plan to join hands with the CCP against Taiwanese independence.
This means that the manipulations of communist China will move Taiwan from economic and cultural integration toward political and military integration and thus precipitate its downfall.
Ma doesn’t have much time left to rein in his horses and take another look at his national security team and the future direction of Taiwan.
Ruan Ming is a consultant at the Taiwan Research Institute.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
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