President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) on Thursday said in his Double Ten National Day speech that the cross-strait ties are not international relations. The latest definition of the relationship indicates that his administration is moving closer to political dialogue with China.
Last year, Ma defined the situation with China as “non-state-to-state relations” in the wake of a meeting between his envoy, former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) at the annual KMT-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forum in China, during which Wu made similar remarks.
Taiwan and China share a special relationship because the two sides do not recognize each other’s sovereignty, but would not deny each other’s existence, Ma said last year.
The Ma administration tried to play down the political significance of Ma’s latest definition by arguing that it is essentially the same as earlier ones.
However, Ma’s latest attempt to get a handle on cross-strait relations during Thursday’s festivities sent a clear message that he is removing the barriers to political negotiations.
When Ma sent Mainland Affairs Council Minister Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) to meet with Taiwan Affairs Office Director Zhang Zhijun (張志軍) at the APEC forum last week, during which the two referred to each other by their official titles, cross-strait relations entered a new era.
The two sides of the Taiwan Strait have handled affairs through semi-government agencies or through party-to-party communications since Ma took office in 2008. With the Wang-Zhang meeting, the two nations took a big step forwards in mutual recognition of each government’s authority. The “special relationship” is no more.
By showing goodwill to the Ma administration, Beijing hopes to speed up the pace of negotiations and resolve political differences.
In his meeting with former vice president Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) at the APEC meeting, Xi stressed Beijing’s “one China” framework and the urgency of resolving political division so it would not be “passed on from generation to generation.”
Xi’s remarks underlined a lack of patience by Beijing over the so-called “1992 consensus,” which it sees as an insufficient foundation for political talks.
Ma chose to unveil his new cross-strait rhetoric on National Day because of pressure from China. The phrase “cross-strait ties are not international relations” abandoned vague wording and the “three noes” policy — no unification, no independence and no use of force.
Despite his basement-level approval ratings, the president seems no longer conservative and reserved about cross-strait relations. His definition of the situation indicates a strategic transformation of his policies. This transformation will shape Taiwan’s future.
Ma should fully explain his new definition to the public and seek public consensus on this critical issue. Whatever definition the nation decides on, it should be the result of public discussion and a democratic decision-making process. The future of Taiwan and China’s relationship cannot be the will of one president or one party.
The public has lost trust in Ma and the KMT during the so-called “September political strife” over improper lobbying allegations and allegedly illegal wiretapping. As serious as these are, they are mere shadows compared to the threat of a redefined cross-strait relationship. Ma must respect Taiwanese, who have developed a strong sense of identity, and refrain from making wayward moves against their clearly expressed will.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS