During a forum on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) 10-year policy platform on May 2, DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) raised the idea of holding an unconditional dialogue with China. While that has been the consistent position of the DPP, I, as an external observer think it is significant that the proposal was made at this time.
First, apart from meaning that China will not be able to demand that the DPP accept the “one China” principle before dialogue is conducted, “unconditional” also means the DPP cannot demand that Beijing first relinquish the “one China” policy or accept the DPP’s view of Taiwanese sovereignty before dialogue is started. In short, “unconditional” means that neither party can set preconditions for talks.
Second, talking about dialogue with China at a forum on the DPP’s 10-year policy platform not only sends a message to the international community that the DPP is not unwilling to talk with China, it also shows that the DPP is confident that it can regain power in the 2012 presidential election. The party is therefore preparing for a possible electoral win by discussing how to handle relations with China, and dialogue is of course one important step in this regard.
Third, Tsai said in a subsequent interview that regardless of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) personal stance on the issue, he will still be constrained by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This, coupled with Tsai’s neutral comments about Hu in the same interview, implies that the DPP will take a more pragmatic approach in its China policy, considering the systemic constraints on decision-making by individuals. It also shows that the DPP does not plan to back down and that it is aware that it cannot raise a host of impractical suggestions to China or harbor impractical expectations.
Fourth, Tsai has shown her determination to lead the DPP’s China policies and has hinted that China should abandon its practice of inviting individual DPP members to China. Her comments also hinted at the necessity of establishing a reasonable set of guidelines for dialogue while at the same time telling China that it is courting disaster by trying to handle Taiwan through cooperating with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
It also shows how Beijing’s passage of the “Anti-Secession” Law and its attempts to define Taiwan as a leftover from the Chinese civil war is not only far removed from reality but also unacceptable to Taiwanese.
Keeping a pragmatic attitude lies at the heart of these four issues. The pan-blue camp and China have taken Tsai’s words as an indication of possible plans to visit China. I think this has blurred the issue and the emphasis should be on whether we can create a feasible mode of interaction between the two sides. The information contained in Tsai’s remarks is something that Beijing cannot afford to ignore.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
With the Year of the Snake reaching its conclusion on Monday next week, now is an opportune moment to reflect on the past year — a year marked by institutional strain and national resilience. For Taiwan, the Year of the Snake was a composite of political friction, economic momentum, social unease and strategic consolidation. In the political sphere, it was defined less by legislative productivity and more by partisan confrontation. The mass recall movement sought to remove 31 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators following the passage of controversial bills that expanded legislative powers and imposed sweeping budget cuts. While the effort
There is a story in India about a boy called Prahlad who was an ardent worshipper of Lord Narayana, whom his father considered an enemy. His son’s devotion vexed the father to the extent that he asked his sister, Holika, who could not be burned by fire, to sit with the boy in her lap and burn him to death. Prahlad knew about this evil plan, but sat in his aunt’s lap anyway. His faith won, as he remained unscathed by the fire, while his aunt was devoured by the flames. In some small way, Prahlad reminds me of Taiwan
When Hong Kong’s High Court sentenced newspaper owner Jimmy Lai (黎智英) to 20 years in prison this week, officials declared that his “heinous crimes” had long poisoned society and that his punishment represented justice restored. In their telling, Lai is the mastermind of Hong Kong’s unrest — the architect of a vast conspiracy that manipulated an otherwise contented population into defiance. They imply that removing him would lead to the return of stability. It is a politically convenient narrative — and a profoundly false one. Lai did not radicalize Hong Kong. He belonged to the same generation that fled from the Chinese
The top Chinese official in charge of Taiwan policy this week said that Beijing must gain dominance in cross-strait relations and firmly support “patriotic pro-reunification forces” in Taiwan. All Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials must “firmly grasp the initiative and dominance in cross-strait relations” to advance the “great cause of national reunification across the Taiwan Strait,” Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧) said at the Taiwan Work Conference, China’s annual event outling policies on Taiwan. Wang also reiterated the need to adhere to the “one China principle” and the so-called “1992 consensus,” to support Taiwanese compatriots who firmly support
RSS