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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS