During a forum on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) 10-year policy platform on May 2, DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) raised the idea of holding an unconditional dialogue with China. While that has been the consistent position of the DPP, I, as an external observer think it is significant that the proposal was made at this time.
First, apart from meaning that China will not be able to demand that the DPP accept the “one China” principle before dialogue is conducted, “unconditional” also means the DPP cannot demand that Beijing first relinquish the “one China” policy or accept the DPP’s view of Taiwanese sovereignty before dialogue is started. In short, “unconditional” means that neither party can set preconditions for talks.
Second, talking about dialogue with China at a forum on the DPP’s 10-year policy platform not only sends a message to the international community that the DPP is not unwilling to talk with China, it also shows that the DPP is confident that it can regain power in the 2012 presidential election. The party is therefore preparing for a possible electoral win by discussing how to handle relations with China, and dialogue is of course one important step in this regard.
Third, Tsai said in a subsequent interview that regardless of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) personal stance on the issue, he will still be constrained by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This, coupled with Tsai’s neutral comments about Hu in the same interview, implies that the DPP will take a more pragmatic approach in its China policy, considering the systemic constraints on decision-making by individuals. It also shows that the DPP does not plan to back down and that it is aware that it cannot raise a host of impractical suggestions to China or harbor impractical expectations.
Fourth, Tsai has shown her determination to lead the DPP’s China policies and has hinted that China should abandon its practice of inviting individual DPP members to China. Her comments also hinted at the necessity of establishing a reasonable set of guidelines for dialogue while at the same time telling China that it is courting disaster by trying to handle Taiwan through cooperating with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
It also shows how Beijing’s passage of the “Anti-Secession” Law and its attempts to define Taiwan as a leftover from the Chinese civil war is not only far removed from reality but also unacceptable to Taiwanese.
Keeping a pragmatic attitude lies at the heart of these four issues. The pan-blue camp and China have taken Tsai’s words as an indication of possible plans to visit China. I think this has blurred the issue and the emphasis should be on whether we can create a feasible mode of interaction between the two sides. The information contained in Tsai’s remarks is something that Beijing cannot afford to ignore.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
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