An interesting thing has come about. In 2000, Beijing announced in a white paper entitled One China Principle and the Taiwan Question that the Republic of China (ROC) had already been replaced by the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. Since, in Beijing's understanding, the ROC no longer exists, why would it choose to resort to force rather than allow Taiwan to "negate" the existence of the ROC?
Beijing considers the ROC to be a remnant of the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and thus the cause for "re-unification" with Taiwan is a sacred mission for all Chinese. Once Taiwan is "liberated," the ROC will be history.
Beijing's intention in enacting an "anti-secession" law is simply to cover up its inability to "liberate" and "re-unify" Taiwan. However, so long as Taiwan continues to retain the name "ROC," the old framework of the civil war between the CCP and the KMT remains in place.
Following the transition of power in 2000, Taiwan absolutely had an opportunity to reverse this historical process and distance itself further from China to resolve what China calls the continuation of the civil war. After the KMT's defeat in the presidential elections in 2000 and last year, the antagonistic situation between the KMT and the CCP no longer exists. What remains is this phoney name: the ROC. Therefore, the ultimate goal of Taiwan's democratization is very obvious.
To deliver a goodwill gesture to the People First Party (PFP), President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) announced in a summit with PFP leader James Soong (宋楚瑜) last week that the ROC is the common denominator for both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
Politically, the announcement recognized that the civil war between the KMT and the CCP has yet to end.
In addition, Chen did not say if he was forced into making this announcement because the opposition parties hold a legislative majority or because he was under pressure from the US. The moment the 10-point agreement reached between Chen and Soong was released, it provoked a backlash within both the green and blue camps. The agreement has shown how terrifying it is to have the "ROC" as a national title.
First, KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
What the Chen-Soong summit has generated is legitimacy for "re-unification" with China. I predict that more confrontation and polarization will occur if this trend facilitates reconciliation between the DPP and the PFP.
Nonetheless, the biggest threat is posed not by the pan-blue camp, but by Beijing. The details of China's proposed anti-secession law have yet to be released, nor have they been discussed. This has forced the DPP to return to the meaningless talk of civil war.
However, Beijing will not be satisfied with simply the continuation of the civil war between the KMT and the CCP. Rather, it would like to end the civil war. No wonder Beijing has arbitrarily and unilaterally confirmed that the "one China" principle is based on the 1992 consensus. Let us mull over chairman Mao Zedong's (毛澤東) sarcastic logic: if peace is our sole end, we can achieve that simple peace at any time by surrendering ourselves.
Is the 10-point agreement the beginning of reconciliation or upheaval? Let us wait and see.
Chin Heng-wei is editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS