Late last month, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) spokesman Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) cited China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Vice Chairman Li Yafei’s (李亞飛) statement at a cross-strait peace and wealth creation forum in Taiwan on Aug. 11 to support his claim that the so-called “1992 consensus” exists.
Su said ARATS and Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) agreed that each side of the Taiwan Strait insist on adhering to the “one China” principle. Su also said that this was what the consensus meant.
However, this claim shows that the foundation of cross-strait negotiations between President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration and Beijing is the “one China” principle and not the “1992 consensus.”
The Ma administration has always told the public that the “1992 consensus” is “one China, with each side making its own interpretation.” It was therefore shocked to hear the ARATS vice chairman say that the consensus was in fact the “one China” principle. Vice President Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) quickly denied this, saying the consensus was that there is “one China,” each side having its own interpretation of what China is.
Three months later, five days after the sixth meeting between SEF Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), the KMT used Li’s statement to prove the existence of the consensus, in effect ignoring Siew’s denial. If Li’s statement is taken to verify the truth about the consensus, then the KMT has shown itself to accept the “one China” principle. After all, it would be quite strange to call something on which there is no agreement a “consensus.”
The “one China” principle is also the basis for the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) that Taiwan signed with China. The change in Beijing’s attitude toward the ECFA can be traced directly to Ma’s political stance after resuming the chairmanship of the KMT. At the first Central Advisory Council meeting of his tenure held on Oct. 18, 2009, he said that “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” means that both sides accept the “one China” principle, but that they could make their own interpretation as to what that means. He therefore made the “one China” principle a premise to “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.”
After Ma clarified his political stance, China changed its passive attitude toward ECFA. A few days later, on Oct. 25, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi (王毅) said the two sides could exchange opinions on the signing of an ECFA during the fourth Chiang-Chen meeting. Later, when Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) met with former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) on Nov. 14, 2009, he promised to start ECFA talks by the end of that year.
After the ECFA was signed, Beijing reminded countries that the ECFA is a domestic business agreement, not an international one.
Since Ma came to power two-and-a-half years ago, there has been a subtle switch in the way the international community views Taiwan, from having de facto, but not de jure, independence, to seeing it as a de jure, but not de facto, part of China.
Therefore, the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait as defined by China’s “Anti-Secession” Law has become internationalized. This has come to pass because of the government’s tacit agreement on the “one China” principle for the sake of signing cross-strait agreements.
Taiwan faces the crisis of eventual unification with China because of Ma’s acceptance of the “one China” principle, an act that has internationalized China’s “Anti-Secession” Law.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
With escalating US-China competition and mutual distrust, the trend of supply chain “friend shoring” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fragmentation of the world into rival geopolitical blocs, many analysts and policymakers worry the world is retreating into a new cold war — a world of trade bifurcation, protectionism and deglobalization. The world is in a new cold war, said Robin Niblett, former director of the London-based think tank Chatham House. Niblett said he sees the US and China slowly reaching a modus vivendi, but it might take time. The two great powers appear to be “reversing carefully
As China steps up a campaign to diplomatically isolate and squeeze Taiwan, it has become more imperative than ever that Taipei play a greater role internationally with the support of the democratic world. To help safeguard its autonomous status, Taiwan needs to go beyond bolstering its defenses with weapons like anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. With the help of its international backers, it must also expand its diplomatic footprint globally. But are Taiwan’s foreign friends willing to translate their rhetoric into action by helping Taipei carve out more international space for itself? Beating back China’s effort to turn Taiwan into an international pariah
Typhoon Krathon made landfall in southwestern Taiwan last week, bringing strong winds, heavy rain and flooding, cutting power to more than 170,000 homes and water supply to more than 400,000 homes, and leading to more than 600 injuries and four deaths. Due to the typhoon, schools and offices across the nation were ordered to close for two to four days, stirring up familiar controversies over whether local governments’ decisions to call typhoon days were appropriate. The typhoon’s center made landfall in Kaohsiung’s Siaogang District (小港) at noon on Thursday, but it weakened into a tropical depression early on Friday, and its structure
Taiwan is facing multiple economic challenges due to internal and external pressures. Internal challenges include energy transition, upgrading industries, a declining birthrate and an aging population. External challenges are technology competition between the US and China, international supply chain restructuring and global economic uncertainty. All of these issues complicate Taiwan’s economic situation. Taiwan’s reliance on fossil fuel imports not only threatens the stability of energy supply, but also goes against the global trend of carbon reduction. The government should continue to promote renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, as well as energy storage technology, to diversify energy supply. It
RSS