The political report from the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) 18th Party Congress takes a passive approach toward political reform, but is quite aggressive in its approach to cross-strait relations. As a result of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) cooperation with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) over the past four years, the report affirms the so-called “1992 consensus.” Beijing’s next steps will be to make further demands on Ma.
To follow up on its success in tying Taiwan to the cross-strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, China aims to embark on a political cooperation framework next.
This is what Hu meant, when he suggested in the report that Taiwan and China “jointly explore cross-strait political relations and make reasonable arrangements for them under the special condition that the country is yet to be reunified.”
He also said: “We hope the two sides will discuss the establishment of a cross-strait military security confidence-building mechanism to maintain stability in their relations, and reach a peace agreement through consultation so as to open a new horizon in advancing the peaceful growth of these relations.”
The possibility of a military security confidence-building mechanism and a peace agreement is something that Ma for several years has hinted at, and mentioned to Hu both directly and indirectly. Last fall, Ma even sent his top aide, former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) secretary-general and now representative to the US, King Pu-tsung (金溥聰), to promote the idea in the US, before he had to step back due to a strong backlash from Taiwanese.
What is of greater concern is how cross-strait relations will be defined from now on, given Hu’s statement that “cross-strait political relations … under the special condition that the country is yet to be reunified.”
Ma always upholds the principle of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation,” while Beijing merely recognizes the first part, “one China.”
However, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) still has not accepted this view. It will be impossible to forge a consensus in Taiwan as long as the DPP rejects it.
Today, the party continues to adhere to the view that there is “Taiwan and China, one country on each side [of the Taiwan Strait],” which was proposed by former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) during his two terms in office. It has not proposed a new approach to this issue.
As for Hu’s definition of cross-strait political relations “under the special condition that the country is yet to be reunified,” the key here lies in the word “special.”
During an interview with Voice of Germany in July 1997, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) said that cross-strait relations were considered “special state-to-state relations.”
Since Lee’s stance lies somewhere between that of Ma and Chen, there is a possibility that it could be the foundation of a consensus.
The problem of course, is which view China will take.
During former Chinese president Jiang Zemin’s (江澤民) time in office, he was opposed to the special state-to-state model of cross-strait relations, based on the erroneous belief that he could threaten Taiwanese with use of force. He was even opposed to Taiwan’s now defunct Guidelines for National Unification (國家統一綱領). However, the result was that voters protested and put the DPP in power.
Politics is often considered to be the art of compromise.
Despite Ma’s cooperation with China, Taiwanese will never allow China to annex Taiwan. That is why Ma has to act clandestinely.
Taiwanese should be allowed to decide whether they want to accept the “special state-to-state” dictum.
What is so special about the “special state-to-state dictum?”
First, it takes Taiwan’s historical background into account. Second, it takes Taiwan’s sovereignty into account, and third, it takes into account the blood relationships and cultural inheritance that the CCP cares so much about.
The CCP might be hopping mad to hear the phrase “state-to-state,” but what is Taiwan if not a state?
If Taiwan is seen as an “area” rather than a country, and we come up with a “special area to area” dictum, then the People’s Republic of China (PRC) would have to change its name to the People’s Areas of China.
In Hong Kong, some activists have launched a “city-state autonomy movement.” Is China willing to be a union of city-states? Is Hu or his successor, Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping (習近平), willing to be an area or union leader?
How long will the special condition of cross-strait relations last?
That will depend on when the political systems of the two sides become sufficiently similar, at which time it could be decided whether or not Taiwan and China should be unified.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS