President Chen Shui-bian (
With that statement, Chen has thrown the ball squarely back into China's court. Beijing now has to address the issue of whether it concurs with the so-called "1992 consensus." Chen's words also offer a possible turning point in the current cross-strait deadlock.
However, chances are Hu is unlikely to spawn a political earthquake by commenting on Chen's remarks. For starters, it is clearly stated in the preface of the Chinese Constitution, adopted in December 1982, that "Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People's Republic of China [PRC]."
If Hu were to accept the idea of "one China with each side having its own interpretation," he would risk not only violating the PRC's Constitution but also setting off predictable waves of resistance and criticism from the Chinese Communist Party. Not to mention that he would also be violating Beijing's "Anti-Secession" Law, which explicitly states in its articles that "the Mainland and Taiwan belong to one China and that there is only one China and that the sovereignty of that one China is indivisible."
Time and again Hu has reiterated that the so-called "1992 consensus" refers to its "one China" principle. One ought to remember that when he met former KMT chairman Lien Chan (
While the KMT continues to bury its head in the sand over the "1992 consensus," it is important that President Chen keep his mind clear and lucid.
Chen's challenge to Hu also carries a risk. He should be fully aware how his remark on Monday might put Taiwan in a vulnerable position and allow it to be taken advantage of by China if he fails to handle it wisely.
The president's statement has shaken the nerves of most pan-green supporters and if not explained clearly, Chen and his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) could very well be confronted with dissatisfaction from their supporters.
What if Hu, known for his skill in playing word games, were to accept? How will the DPP administration respond to a possible scenario of "two Chinas" without compromising Taiwan's dignity and status? Worse, it could further lock Taiwan into the position of Beijing's definition of "one China."
Although Chen had carefully phrased his challenge -- the word "respect" is not tantamount to "accept" -- the president should nonetheless be cautious and avoid falling into "united front" traps set by China.
The DPP administration ought to seriously contemplate and draft strategies on what it is prepared to face when China throws the ball back into its court.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS