Taiwan and China are two completely different political entities. At some time in the future, the two might be willing to hold negotiations aimed at resolving issues such as withdrawing China’s missiles aimed at Taiwan, promoting military exchanges, establishing a military buffer zone and reviewing the long-standing stalemate between the two sides. However, even if the will were there, none of these issues would be easy to resolve.
In other words, even if the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is voted back into government and wants to establish a system of military confidence-building measures or sign a cross-strait peace agreement with China, the biggest obstacle would still be China’s “one China” principle.
China’s leaders have often said that they are willing to accept the “1992 consensus” as a basis for economic, social and cultural exchanges with Taiwan, but they have never said that they could accept the “1992 consensus” as a basis for negotiating with Taiwan on highly sensitive political or military issues.
Looking back over the public statements made by Chinese leaders responsible for Taiwan affairs, they have never of their own initiative proposed the “1992 consensus” as a basis for resolving major cross-strait political disputes.
On the contrary, the Beijing government persists in its position of handling the question of Taiwan’s sovereignty in terms of “one country, two systems” and the “one China” principle. It has never made any concessions or allowed any leeway for compromise on this point.
Susan Shirk is chair of the 21st Century China Center at the University of California, San Diego and has been researching China for many years.
Shirk stated that successive generations of Chinese leaders have all stuck to a fixed position regarding the “Taiwan question,” because if any national leader dared to make concessions concerning Beijing’s “one China” principle, they would probably come under heavy attack from Chinese Communist Party comrades, the controlling alliance or the military, and be forced to step down.
During the eight years of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, frequent interactions took place between retired high-ranking military officers from either side of the Taiwan Strait.
However, when there was any suggestion of official, formal visits involving “cross-strait military exchanges,” no such visit ever went ahead. The fundamental reason was, and still is, that the Chinese authorities do not recognize the Republic of China and have never allowed any ambiguity or relaxation with respect to their “one China” principle.
Signing a “cross-strait peace agreement” would involve matters of Taiwan’s sovereignty and national dignity. It would depend on social consensus and the will of the public as a whole.
As such, it cannot be decided by any particular political party. This is all the more true given that China has never made the effort to express its goodwill. To float such a sensitive and controversial proposal under such conditions is not a wise move.
Yao Chung-yuan is a part-time university professor and former deputy director of the Ministry of National Defense’s Strategic Planning Department.
Translated by Julian Clegg
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS