At the end of last month, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) published a statement on its official Web site, saying that as the leader of Taiwan “does not recognize the 1992 consensus, which embodies the common political foundation of the ‘one China’ principle, official channels of communication between the two sides have been stopped.”
Beijing is continuously trying to intimidate Taiwan. It has not hesitated to sever the mechanisms for official and semi-official cross-strait negotiations between Taiwan and China, or constrict Taiwan internationally, including snatching away Taiwan’s diplomatic allies. These actions are an attempt by Beijing to force President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration into submission over the so-called “1992 consensus.”
American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairman Raymond Burghardt caught the attention of many observers in an interview with Voice of America on June 22. In a break with the indirect, cautious language of the past, Burghardt said that the “1992 consensus” does not exist.
Burghardt, who has served as a US consul general in Shanghai and as director of the AIT, had many contacts and discussions with Wang Daohan (汪道涵) and Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫), who directed the talks between Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits, and he unequivocally said that neither Wang nor Koo ever used the term “1992 consensus,” adding that only Koo occasionally made reference to a “1992 understanding.”
Burghardt’s blunt exposure of the truth has left Beijing with egg on its face, although his words — the result of careful deliberation and thought — are based on important events and considerations.
At the beginning of last month, Burghardt, former AIT director Steve Young, former US ambassador to China Winston Lord and specialists from several US think tanks met with TAO officials and several Chinese diplomats and academics in New York to take part in a “Track 1.5” meeting. The two sides crossed swords repeatedly during the lively discussions on US-China and cross-strait relations.
Saying that Tsai did not acknowledge the “1992 consensus” during her inauguration speech, or propose any concrete suggestions to ensure a stable cross-strait relationship, TAO Vice Director Chen Yuanfeng (陳元豐) accused Tsai of using her policy of “maintaining the ‘status quo’” as a cover to change the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait.
During the meeting, Chen defined the “1992 consensus” and “one China” principle as “red lines” for Beijing, saying that until Tsai’s administration accepts both these formulas, cross-strait dialogue cannot be resumed.
Many attendees from the Chinese side also said that they do not trust Tsai and accused her of promoting “splittist” policies that damage cross-strait peace by boosting the awareness of Taiwanese identity among the Taiwanese public.
The Chinese side also issued a warning to the US not to be led astray by Taiwan’s government or send wrong signals to the Tsai administration. They also requested that the US assume a “constructive” role in cross-strait relations.
Burghardt and many people from the US side were unanimous in expressing their disagreement with Beijing’s decision to sever communications and dialogue with Taiwan. They raised the important concessions that Tsai has made, which has moved her administration closer to Beijing’s position.
They said that although Tsai did not express an acceptance of the “1992 consensus” and the “one China” principle in her speech, she nevertheless declared that her administration would govern according to the Republic of China Constitution, the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例) and other laws pertaining to cross-strait affairs.
In doing so, Tsai has implicitly recognized the “one China” principle, as the Constitution is a “one China” constitution, they said.
In addition, a US spokesperson bluntly said that TAO officials’ and Beijing’s policy of putting pressure on — and seeking to interfere with — the Tsai administration in the hope that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is able to stage a comeback, is not only unrealistic and illusory, it is also too late to have an effect and it would only trigger further backlash from the Taiwanese public.
In 2000, the Democratic Progressive Party managed the first-ever transition of power in Taiwan. At that time, Beijing leveraged its power and, with the help of the US, put pressure on former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration, which resulted in an expression of goodwill toward China in the form of Chen’s “four noes and one without” policy.
At that time, then-AIT director Burghardt and then-AIT chairman Richard Bush acted as go-betweens, assuming what Beijing calls a “constructive” role. However, the circumstances have changed and Washington refuses to play this role any more.
During the Voice of America interview, Burghardt cited Lord as saying: “The US has not been intelligent enough and has been unable to think of a way to help Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to resolve their relationship with each other,” and added that these words still apply today.
Burghardt further said that the US Congress recently reaffirmed the Taiwan Relations Act and the “six assurances,” in which there are two clauses that guarantee that the US would not act as a mediator between the two sides of the Strait or put pressure on Taiwan to enter into negotiations with China.
Washington’s adjustment of its Taiwan policy has three goals: first, to support Taiwan’s security and bolster its ability to resist invasion and coercion from external actors; second, to promote the further opening up and diversification of Taiwan’s economy; and third, to help Taiwan achieve its rightful place as a respected participant of the international community.
These goals reflect a major turning point in US policy and its strategic thinking on how to respond to China’s hegemonism.
Parris Chang, professor emeritus of political science at Penn State University and president of the Taiwan Institute for Political, Economic and Strategic Studies, served as a Democratic Progressive Party legislator and deputy secretary-general of the National Security Council.
Translated by Edward Jones
US President Donald Trump last week told reporters that he had signed about 12 letters to US trading partners, which were set to be sent out yesterday, levying unilateral tariff rates of up to 70 percent from Aug. 1. However, Trump did not say which countries the letters would be sent to, nor did he discuss the specific tariff rates, reports said. The news of the tariff letters came as Washington and Hanoi reached a trade deal earlier last week to cut tariffs on Vietnamese exports to the US to 20 percent from 46 percent, making it the first Asian country
On Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) delivered a welcome speech at the ILA-ASIL Asia-Pacific Research Forum, addressing more than 50 international law experts from more than 20 countries. With an aim to refute the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) claim to be the successor to the 1945 Chinese government and its assertion that China acquired sovereignty over Taiwan, Lin articulated three key legal positions in his speech: First, the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration were not legally binding instruments and thus had no legal effect for territorial disposition. All determinations must be based on the San Francisco Peace
As things heated up in the Middle East in early June, some in the Pentagon resisted American involvement in the Israel-Iran war because it would divert American attention and resources from the real challenge: China. This was exactly wrong. Rather, bombing Iran was the best thing that could have happened for America’s Asia policy. When it came to dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, “all options are on the table” had become an American mantra over the past two decades. But the more often US administration officials insisted that military force was in the cards, the less anyone believed it. After
During an impromptu Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) rally on Tuesday last week to protest what the party called the unfairness of the judicial system, a young TPP supporter said that if Taiwan goes to war, he would “surrender to the [Chinese] People’s Liberation Army [PLA] with unyielding determination.” The rally was held after former Taipei deputy mayor Pong Cheng-sheng’s (彭振聲) wife took her life prior to Pong’s appearance in court to testify in the Core Pacific corruption case involving former Taipei mayor and TPP chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲). The TPP supporter said President William Lai (賴清德) was leading them to die on
RSS