Not long ago, media outlets reported that Taipei Forum chairman Su Chi (蘇起) — the former Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) chairman who coined the term “1992 consensus” — took part in a cross-strait academic conference in Shanghai to mark the anniversary of Beijing’s 1979 “message to compatriots in Taiwan.”
At the conference, Su bluntly said that he was very pessimistic about relations between Taiwan and China in the coming year, because the international situation is full of uncertainty and the game being played is a more difficult one than he has ever seen.
The importance of the “US factor” in cross-strait relations next year would be unprecedented, Su said, adding that 2020 presidential campaigns would pivot from a confrontation between the unification and independence camps to a wrestling match between the pro-China and pro-US camps.
In terms of the election, Su said that President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) would undoubtedly be the greatest beneficiary of the increasing importance of the US factor.
His reason for saying so was that, as the incumbent head of state, Tsai would be better placed than anyone to make use of the US factor.
Given these favorable conditions, it would only be logical that she remain the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) candidate.
Su could make the prediction about Tsai’s nomination with confidence because the two academics-turned-politicians used to be colleagues when they were teaching at National Chengchi University and both served as MAC chairperson, Su during the presidency of Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Tsai during the presidency of Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁).
They know each other’s style and how they study.
Su offered a remedy for the cross-strait issue by creating the term “1992 consensus,” which was not in line with fact. Instead, it caused trouble, as Taiwan has been hijacked by China over cross-strait relations ever since.
With US-China relations at a low point, Su’s recent remarks have attracted a lot of attention, as if he was reminding his masters of the situation by issuing a warning to Beijing.
Su’s statement differs from the generalities of other commentators. He holds a doctoral degree in political science from the prestigious Columbia University and is highly versed in international relations.
Due to his concerns about Tsai being re-elected, he pointed out the confrontation between the pro-China and the pro-US camps. Over the past two years, Taiwan-US relations have gradually improved, and the interactions between Tsai and Washington show that the development of the relationship appears to be heading in a positive direction.
Faced with China’s carrot-and-stick policy, the Tsai administration has never changed its stance, thus putting Washington at ease.
From this perspective, if Washington wants a “Taiwan card” to play in the next presidential election, it might not find a bigger political star in the DPP than Tsai.
As for how the situation is likely to develop, that can be assessed by looking at the seriousness of the US-China trade dispute, just as the strategic importance of Taiwan is becoming self-evident following the US’ return to Asia.
Francis Tsai is a former secretary to the president of Kaohsiung Medical University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS