While China is attempting to achieve “most favored nation” status with the US, it has refused Washington’s pressure to improve its human rights record, saying that China and the US have different social systems and ideologies and that they should not interfere in each other’s internal affairs. China stresses “two systems for two different countries and peaceful coexistence.”
If former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) had been more broad-minded and farsighted by emphasizing the differences between Taiwan and China and respecting the actual situation, then the ideal of “two systems for two different countries” would have resulted in peaceful relations between Taiwan and China while the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was in power.
The dispute over Taiwan stems from China being unable to accept the differences in political, social and ideological systems between Taiwan and China and the tyrannical way in which Beijing wants to make Taiwan part of China. In Chinese, “one” (yi, 一) and “difference” (yi, 異) share the same pronunciation, but have different tones. This slight difference in tone is an unlimited source of trouble.
Unless China faces facts and gives up its insistence on things being “one” and instead accepts “difference,” Taiwan will have no choice but to go off in search of the common strategic interests it shares with other counties around the world. This is the only way Taiwan can resist China’s insistence on things being “one” to uphold the “differences” that actually exist.
DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has proposed the idea of “seeking harmony, but reserving the right to disagree” and “seeking agreement in a spirit of conciliation.” This takes things out of the framework fixed on “one” and highlights the differences in the values, system and identity between Taiwan and China in order to make the search for “peaceful and stable relations” a common interest and responsibility shared by Taiwan and China. This is something the vast majority of Taiwanese can agree is the lowest common denominator of “two systems for two different countries and peaceful coexistence.”
The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) reaction to Tsai’s proposal highlights the similarities between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). These two evil twins are in bed together, both clinging to the shaky so-called “1992 consensus” in an attempt to turn Taiwan into a part of China. The way this supposedly makes Taiwan a part of China’s internal affairs has been the subject of strong protest and debate.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government has even gone as far as pulling out Taiwan’s garbage Constitution to put pressure on Tsai. That Constitution is a strong symbol of how the KMT raped the people of Taiwan. That Constitution, which splits “China” into two areas, was drawn up by the KMT long before Taiwan’s democratization and is out of touch with the current situation.
While the DPP government was unable to overhaul the Constitution or formulate a new one, their insistence on upholding the “differences” that exist between Taiwan and China and the concepts of independence and autonomy were well respected by the international community.
However, the way the Ma government follows China’s idea of the “one China” principle allows members of the international community to say that the People’s Republic of China is the only side they will deal with.
A constitution is a fundamental piece of legislation that represents the will of a people while also regulating governmental organization and the rights and interests of a population. The “constitution” that Ma supposedly obeys is one that is based on contradictions and distortions and will lead to the end of Taiwan.
James Wang is a commentator based in Taipei.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS