The two-day cross-strait talks that ended yesterday in Fuzhou, China, are said to be the last high-level cross-strait meetings that will take place under President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) watch. China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits Chairman Chen Deming (陳德銘), in a speech delivered during the talks, remarked — in a comment aimed at a specific audience — that the future of cross-strait relations “would not be plain sailing,” lending weight to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) comment that if the so-called “1992 consensus,” is not accepted, “the earth will move and the mountains will shake.”
With the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) having a better-than-even chance of winning next year’s presidential election, Chen’s statement is more like a shot across the bow for that party — possibly the future administration, which has avoided discussing its stance on the “1992 consensus” — than a threat directed at Taiwan’s voters.
Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who visited Shanghai last week, said before he traveled to China that he “understands and respects” — without going to the extent of “accepting” — the “1992 consensus.” The Chinese authorities recognized Ko’s vague terms, and gave the Taipei-Shanghai forum the green light. It is said that Ko’s understanding of the “1992 consensus,” along with his statement that the two sides of the Strait are “one family,” has put a lot of pressure on the DPP, which staunchly opposes any “one China” rhetoric.
However, is this really the case? If Beijing can accept Ko’s vague statements and his “2015 new standpoint,” it indicates that Ko has created a model of cross-strait interactions that lies outside the bounds of the nation’s two-party spectrum.
The DPP might be worried that Ko’s flexibility over cross-strait ties could see him lean too far toward Beijing, but as Ko is managing to communicate with China without having to align himself with “one China” rhetoric, it is those who see themselves as the guardians of the “1992 consensus” who should be in a cold sweat.
Cross-strait communication should not be monopolized by a single party.
After the Sunflower movement occupied the Executive Yuan in protest over secretive agreements signed between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), Beijing must now be aware that giving the KMT the exclusive right to conduct cross-strait business does not promote the interests of the CCP in the long term: It benefits the KMT, which can dole out business perks as favors, but the CCP will be dragged down by the KMT when the latter fails.
Since winning over Taiwan, rather than working with the KMT, is Beijing’s top priority, there is no reason for the CCP to put all its eggs in one basket.
To achieve its aims, Beijing must engage in a tug-of-war, and success requires calculated rhetoric, diplomatic adroitness and sensitivity. However, what Beijing needs most in Taiwan is popular support, which is proportionate to political power in a democratic country. That is something that Beijing — no matter how bitterly — must bow to, especially as there is likely to be a change in the governing administration next year.
Chen’s warning is more of a bluff than a show of resolve. During the DPP’s eight years in power, cross-strait economic and trade exchanges did not decelerate, let alone halt, therefore the CCP, it could be argued, is the party that would now want to reap the political benefits out of cross-strait commerce.
No agreement was reached in the last cross-strait negotiations to be held under Ma on Chinese travelers being allowed to transit through Taiwan, a deal much anticipated by some in Taiwan. It is said that China might use the issue against the next administration as a bargaining chip, which, insofar as it is for “bargaining,” is apparently to be used in negotiations, not in the void of no formal exchanges between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.
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