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.
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