When, after their weekend visit to Beijing, six Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and two independent local government heads suggested that Chinese tourists who want to tour Taiwan just visit the areas that they administer, since they support the so-called “1992 consensus,” other Taiwanese saw the clear hand of China’s bullying.
KMT hardliners no doubt attribute the drastic drop in the number of Chinese tourists to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government, but the KMT could hurt its legitimacy in the eyes of the general public by siding with Beijing.
Members of Taiwan’s Paralympics team on Tuesday complained about being pressured by China into changing the badge on their uniforms because it depicted the “national emblem,” while yesterday it was revealed that Taiwanese officials were expelled from a meeting of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Committee on Fisheries in July under pressure from China.
China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) Chairman Chen Deming (陳德銘), in an interview with Singapore’s Chinese-language Lianhe Zaobao reiterated Beijing’s stance that without the “1992 consensus” that encompasses the idea of “one China,” Taiwan would have no recourse in cross-strait negotiations, which he linked to Taiwan’s participation in international activities.
The eight local government heads, who a DPP lawmaker collectively labeled the “eight blue slaves,” claimed their trip to Beijing was to advance cross-strait exchanges, and to bring economic benefits to their cities and counties.
Their trip is said to have been carefully planned by Beijing; true or not, the fact that the delegation upheld the banner of the “1992 consensus” made the eight complicit in helping Beijing bypass the public’s desire for a new path for cross-strait relations — one that would no longer rely on compradors or preconditions — which was one of the reasons the KMT was swept out of office in January’s elections.
If the “1992 consensus” were so important to Taiwan’s economy, as the delegation members said, the public would have felt it and gladly embraced it.
After all, grandiose ideas and beliefs cannot be dined on, which is what President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said during her campaign and why, since taking office, she has focused on internal structural transformations that could upgrade the economy and deliver a sound financial system and social security.
Good leaders recognize that the public needs economic security and a better standard of living before entertaining abstract thinking.
Taiwanese can plainly see that it is not that the DPP government is incompetent in handling cross-strait affairs, especially when the Tsai administration, in sticking to the middle-ground, has also been attacked by the deep-green camp, which accuses the administration of being too timid about asserting stances that it thinks a DPP president should defend.
DPP heads of local governments would also like cross-strait exchanges to flourish, but the point of the eight “kowtowing” to Beijing is not a wish for more exchanges, but their willingness to play into Beijing’s hands by agreeing there should be a political premise for such exchanges.
The KMT’s action is not unlike when Association of Taiwan Investment Enterprises on the Mainland chairman Wang Ping-sheng (王屏生) last week insulted the Taiwanese public by calling it “sick” for not accepting the “1992 consensus” and the idea of “one China.” It was a self-righteous and arrogant remark made to a democracy.
The trip to Beijing has deepened Taiwanese doubt about the KMT’s resolve to uphold its, rather than Beijing’s, interpretation of the “1992 consensus.” KMT members backing of KMT Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu’s (洪秀柱) proposal to keep the “1992 consensus,” but remove “one China, different interpretations” in the party’s platform is seen by many as moving one step closer to “one China, same interpretation.”
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has created a dilemma that could soon cause him to be hoisted with his own petard, bringing his leadership of China to an end. His threatening rhetoric over the unification of Taiwan with China, in which he has said, “we are willing to draw blood if necessary,” has placed Xi in a corner. Xi is portrayed as a strong world leader, yet he has created a scenario for himself that most likely would have an unfavorable outcome. With the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) scheduled to convene this month, Xi cannot
The 77th session of the UN General Assembly opened on Sept. 13. More than 10 overseas Taiwanese organizations had submitted a petition to the UN secretary-general, protesting that 23.5 million Taiwanese are excluded from representation. As president of the Taiwan United Nations Alliance, I also submitted a letter to the UN, saying that Taiwanese should have the right to be represented under the name of Taiwan. The government has been asking its allies to support Taiwan’s entry into the UN, but under its official name, the Republic of China (ROC). Doing so would have involved the right to represent China, with
I was privileged to meet with many of Taiwan’s leaders and leading thinkers during a study tour visit in August. One theme I heard several times during that trip was that bad relations between the United States and China benefit Taiwan. At first thought, I empathize with the argument. After all, there is a troubling record of America’s leaders negotiating with Beijing over the heads of Taiwan’s leaders. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt returned Taiwan to China after World War II. President Richard Nixon surprised Taiwan leaders with his 1972 trip to China. President Jimmy Carter unilaterally chose to normalize
Washington’s “one China” policy has not changed and the US does not take a position on Taiwan’s sovereignty issue, a US Department of State spokesperson has said. He said that this has been the principle of US policy toward Taiwan since 1979, and the policy has remained in effect. He also said that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has privately made this clear to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅). The US’ “one China” policy and China’s “one China” principle recognize China as the “representative of China.” The two diverge on the issue of Taiwan: Beijing asserts sovereignty
RSS