Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has proposed using a “Taiwan consensus” to replace the fictitious so-called “1992 consensus” as the basis for future relations with China, even raising the issue of legislating such a consensus on her recent trip to Washington, but the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) raised doubts about such a consensus.
However, the KMT’s hackneyed approach does not stand up to scrutiny. For example, it promises to protect the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of China (ROC), yet it acquiesced to what China wanted at a recent WHO meeting, not because to do so was in the ROC’s interest, but because the party hopes to sign a peace agreement with China.
In addition, although the Additional Articles (增修條文) to the ROC Constitution make national unification a precondition, that is diametrically opposed to the current administration’s talk about “no unification.”
The government also says it will not broach the use of military force or seek independence. Whether or not there is war hardly comes down to Taiwan, because we will not be the ones to decide.
Taiwan is an independent, sovereign country and yet, ever since the KMT arrived, it has been consistently anti--independence. There is little room for maneuver between saying “no talk of independence” and being anti-independence.
Tsai has said that the Taiwan consensus is to be a way of reaching common ground from different positions by way of mutual compromise. For her to clarify in detail exactly what shape such a consensus is to take would involve imposing her own preferences and prejudices on what should be an open dialogue. For this reason, she has avoided making any substantive qualifications about what it may or may not entail.
That having been said, and the development of a Taiwan consensus through democratic means notwithstanding, the bare bones of what such a consensus would look like can be seen in the shape of the sixth of the six main points on how to reform Taiwan in the main outline of the party’s 10-year policy outline, A Multilateral Strategy for Stable Peace (多邊穩定的和平戰略).
This states: “In order to ensure Taiwan’s continued existence and security and to make sure our values are respected and that we continue to grow and prosper, national security strategy should be founded on five pillars: Taiwan should insist upon its own values and principles of democracy, liberty, human rights and the environment as the basis of any foreign relations or cooperation; the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should go beyond the old historical framework in search of a strategy that is mutually beneficial and look for ways that the tense situation that has been bequeathed us can be improved upon; Taiwan should establish a balanced framework, globally and regionally, for relations with other nations, a strategy to achieve such a balance, and establish direct links with the global community; any policy that involves Taiwan’s major interests, foreign relations or security policies, including options concerning Taiwan’s future development, must be decided in accordance with democratic principles and procedures, so that we can build a democratic consensus within our society; and Taiwan must strengthen the public’s security awareness and psychological defenses to establish a security defense mechanism equipped to deal with military intimidation and crises.”
These points should serve as a framework for the Taiwan consensus. The details can be filled in by the public coming together as part of a democratic process.
Lin Chia-cheng is a professor and former member of the government’s Research, Development and Evaluation Commission.
Translated by Paul Cooper
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS