President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), on taking office in 2000, gave an inauguration speech in which he talked of the "five noes," an expression of his good intentions toward China. This did not impress the Chinese leaders in Beijing at the time, including former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民), who claimed that Chen was pro-independence and declared that they would be "listening to his words and observing his actions."
Over the next four years, Chen continued to show goodwill, putting forward the concepts of "assimilation" and "a future one China." His invitation to have tea with Jiang on the front line isle of Tatun in April 2002 was met with similar coldness and derision. In the meantime China has been amassing missiles along the coast facing Taiwan, increasing its military threat and, in line with its policies of isolating Taiwan on the international stage, giving the nation little room to breathe.
Beijing was frustrated once again in the presidential elections this year, when Chen was able to defeat the pan-blue alliance's ticket of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜).
During his inauguration speech this time, in addition to reiterating his adherence to the five noes principle, Chen also declared that he ruled nothing out in terms of the future political relationship with China, as long as any changes had the consent of the Taiwanese people. This included the possibility of unification with China. Despite Lien's and Soong's continued refusal to accept their electoral defeat, and their endless assertions that "there is no president without the truth," Chen's second term was assured.
Nevertheless, the Beijing authorities are still refusing to have any contact with the Chen government. During his Double Ten National Day address, Chen said, "Taiwan is pleased to witness the steady progress, reforms and peaceful emergence of China. We also extend our best wishes to the other side of the Strait as it prepares for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and we hope that it will be a successful event conducted in accordance with the Olympic spirit of peace and equality."
He repeated the call he made in his May 20 inauguration address, in which he called for leaders on both sides of the Strait in the new century to heed the new trend of regional integration and globalization, to adopt a brand new frame of mind and take a fresh approach in addressing future cross-strait issues. The exact form that future political relations between China and Taiwan take, as far as Chen was concerned, depended on the will of everyone in Taiwan.
Chen went on to say, "Cross-strait relations are not necessarily a zero-sum game, there will never be a winner unless it's a win-win situation for both sides."
He said he believed that this was a point the fourth-generation leadership in Beijing should be able to understand.
"On many issues, the governments and the peoples on both sides of the Strait hold different views -- some of which result from the absence of communication. In light of this, I have, on many occasions, proposed that, based on the existing foundation, both sides should promote the resumption of cross-strait dialogue and communication channels, so as to reduce the gap between the two sides and to construct a foundation of mutual trust," he said.
"Today, I would like to take the initiative to propose that both sides use the basis of the 1992 meeting in Hong Kong to seek possible schemes that are `not necessarily perfect but accept-able,' as preparation for a step forward in the resumption of dialogue and consultation," he said.
Finally, Chen proposed arms control, "establishing a mechanism of mutual trust in the military field," the creation of "a code of conduct across the Taiwan Strait," and a "convenient and efficient means to facilitate chartered flights for passengers and cargo" as topics for discussion.
Chen has now shown Beijing about as much goodwill as he can. If he keeps going, he will wind up accepting the "one China" principle.
Lien has said that Chen's remarks on basing negotiations on the 1992 talks in Hong Kong are nothing new, and only a perfunctory response to the situation. He also said that the "1992 consensus" was reached in negotiations between the KMT and Chinese governments, and that its importance lies in "one China, with each side having its own interpretation."
The Taiwan Solidarity Union has criticized Chen's speech, saying that it is not much of a breakthrough as far as cross-strait relations go.
Li Jiaquan (
Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) has offered a clarification [of Chen's speech], saying that the foundation of the 1992 Hong Kong talks wasn't the KMT's "one China, with each side having its own interpretation," nor Beijing's "one China" principle. According to Wu, the spirit of the 1992 talks was to leave disputes aside and concentrate on talks.
Chen has made great concessions by putting forward his new policy. The fourth generation Chinese leadership has only just come to power, and we are waiting intently to find out whether Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) will have a new vision and style, and more wisdom, as well as the ability to consider peace and the bigger picture and initiate talks with Chen. However, judging from Beijing's total boycott of Chen over the past four years and from recent leaked information, it is difficult to be optimistic. I'll give one example why this is so.
Kevin Rudd, foreign affairs spokesman in Australia's shadow Cabinet, is a politician with a deep understanding of dictatorial China and democratic Taiwan. He has studied in Taiwan and served as a diplomat in China -- he was in Beijing at the time of the Tiananmen Massacre. In recent years he has traveled and met with political leaders on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, including with Chen. We are quite good friends, and I believe that he approves of Taiwan's democratization and has feelings for Taiwan.
He often says that he is a good friend of Taiwan's. He has visited China several times this year, meeting with high-level Chinese leaders. Lately, he has said in public, as well as to me in private, that Chinese leaders have been listening intently to Chen and observing his actions closely over the past four years, and they believe that he is an independence fundamentalist who personally, psychologically and politically is determined to have Taiwan break away from China and establish an independent Taiwanese republic.
The leadership in Beijing therefore believes that they must take a different approach to dealing with Chen. Rudd's interpretation is that this "different approach" means military liberation of Taiwan. This has him very worried, and has led him to use strong language to warn Taiwan not to take any rash action that China may find provocative.
He tells me that this is for the good of Taiwan, but I don't buy that. But we cannot ignore the tough attitudes that he tells us Beijing leaders are taking toward Chen.
I hope that Rudd is wrong, and that Hu and Wen will be capable of showing new vision and more wisdom, and that they will meet and negotiate with Chen when they see his goodwill, sincerity and earnest efforts. I hope the conflict can be solved by finding a reasonable, peaceful, mutually beneficial way that will maintain the prosperity and happiness of the millions of people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
This is what I hope, but I am not very optimistic.
Chiou Chwei-liang is a visiting professor at Tamkang University.
Translated by Paul Cooper and Perry Svensson
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS