Last Friday's speech by the fourth-ranked Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader, Jia Qinglin (賈慶林), clearly demonstrates that China still does not understand Taiwan. Although it was a major statement commemorating the 10th anniversary of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin's (江澤民) so-called Eight Points, the speech said little that was new. Other than giving a few hints about China's proposed anti-secession law, the speech uses racist argumentation and falsehoods to make its case.
Jia begins by noting how Jiang reiterated the policies of "peaceful unification" and "one country, two systems" -- policies which came from Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平). According to Jia, everything was fine until the mid-1990s when Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) pushed the "separatist activities" of creating "two Chinas" and "one China, one Taiwan."
Jia said that Jiang's eight points "supported the principle of one China, the foundation and prerequisite for achieving peaceful unification."
But the speech did not recognize that such a prerequisite would end negotiations before they began. This renders meaningless the subsequent statement that "under the prerequisite of one China, we can discuss any topic."
Perhaps the most disappointing feature of Jia's speech is its use of racist argumentation. He claims that Taiwanese are Chinese because of their "bones and flesh" and states, "the 21st century is the century of the Chinese people achieving a great renaissance," a "great renaissance that is the joint desire of all Chinese sons and daughters."
Such racist language goes back to Sun Yat-sen's (
The one new point in Jia's speech is his short discussion of the proposed "Anti-Secession National Law" (反分裂國家法). He says, "This law will codify as law the policies which our party and government have implemented for more than 20 years to achieve a peaceful solution to the Taiwan question using the basic policies of peaceful unification and `one country, two systems' and the Eight Points."
According to Jia, "This law will also make clear that all the Chinese people will defend the nation's sovereignty and its territorial integrity, and that they absolutely will not accept `Taiwan independence' separatist forces using any name or any method to separate Taiwan from China."
Jia says that in the early 1990s, Taiwan accepted the "1992 consensus" in which both sides agreed to "one China, with each side making its own interpretation." Originally, China denied that such a 1992 consensus existed, only saying in late 2001 that such a consensus had been agreed to, during Taiwan's legislative elections when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) said as much. At that time, Su Chi (蘇起), a former KMT official who later served as vice-chairman and chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), maintained that such a consensus existed, but people in the MAC looked for evidence and found none.
Finally, Jia argues that we "advocate the new path of developing relations across the straits with Taiwan's political parties, groups and representative personages to seek discussions and the resolution of problems."
In China, the CCP controls government and groups as well as "personages," but Taiwan is now a democracy and must be represented by its government. Jia, like his predecessors in enunciating Chinese policy, fails to understand this change. Rather, he says Taiwan identity, democracy and reform are simply banners of the "`Taiwan Independence' separatist forces" who wish to use all their energies to push "desinification," "cultural Taiwan independence" and "rectification of Taiwan's name."
Charter flights across the Taiwan Strait during the Lunar New Year are great for Taiwanese businessmen and their families, but China cannot hope for genuine progress in cross-strait relations until it significantly increases its understanding of Taiwan and changes its policies accordingly. What initial steps could China take to improve its relations with Taiwan without giving too much away?
First, even without changing its rhetoric, as a measure to promote mutual confidence, China could reduce the number of missiles pointed at Taiwan. Second, China could attempt to demonstrate the bona fides of its "one country, two systems" policy by genuinely giving Hong Kong more autonomy. Third, China could agree to more practical cross-strait measures such as taking back its citizens that are currently in Taiwan's jails for illegal entry.
Bruce Jacobs is a professor of Asian languages and studies at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.
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