While most domestic discussion on the cross-strait relationship has been focused on the summit between US President George W. Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) on Thursday next week, the "economic and trade forum" between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) this week deserves more attention.
Despite the KMT's explanation that the agenda of the forum will involve only economic issues, the political implications of the forum and the meeting between former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and Hu this Sunday have cast a shadow over the national interest.
The timing of this year's KMT-CCP forum is politically calculated and should be seen as part of Beijing's "divide and conquer" strategy to isolate the administration of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). It provides Hu with a means of blaming the current cross-strait impasse on Chen when Hu meets Bush.
Despite Washington's call to talk to Chen and his government, Beijing insists on bypassing the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration and dealing only with the pan-blue opposition.
Utilizing Taiwan's domestic politics is the core of Beijing's underhand strategy. However, it is the KMT's willingness to dance to China's tune that reinforces Beijing's capacity to ignore the Chen administration.
It is also clear that Hu will use the example of the KMT-CCP talks to convince his US counterpart that Chen and the DPP are the major obstacles toward cross-strait dialogue.
Beijing's philosophy of "uniting with the lesser enemy to oppose the main enemy" fits with the KMT's goal and Lien's personal desire to open the door to China. Nevertheless, the KMT and Lien's scheme runs the risk of sabotaging the national interest, national security, sovereignty and dignity.
Lien has fallen into Beijing's trap and is a tool in China's game of dividing local political forces. He has assisted in creating an international misperception that cross-strait tensions are primarily the result of Chen's leadership.
The notion of "it's all Chen's fault" created by the pan-blue camp has not only permeated the international community but is also hurting the government's ability to bargain with China.
Furthermore, Beijing's ambiguous "agreements" with Lien and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) last year on the fictitious "1992 consensus" as the basis for the resumption of cross-strait talks have misled the public over China's intentions.
Beijing's wish to exploit Chen's weak leadership explains its pressure on his administration to accept its "one China" principle without responding to the numerous olive branches he has offered.
This also explains why Chen suggested to KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) last week that "he would absolutely respect" the idea of "one China with each side having its own interpretation."
One way to break Beijing's divide-and-conquer strategy is to nourish conflict between the KMT and the CCP. During his earlier meeting with Ma, Chen called on Lien to clarify the so-called "1992 consensus" with Hu.
Since Beijing has stuck to its own interpretation that "one China" means the People's Republic of China and that Taiwan is part of it, there is no room for the Chinese leadership to accept any "consensus" based on "two Chinas" or "one China with different interpretations" as proposed by the KMT.
If the KMT and the CCP agree on "one China" with differing interpretations, then Beijing must say whether it agrees with the "1992 consensus."
It is of utmost importance that members of the international community, especially our friends in the US, are able to decipher Beijing's strategy and demand an equal and peaceful negotiation between China and Taiwan.
Liu Kuan-teh is a political commentator based in Taipei.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS