During the recent APEC summit in Bali, Indonesia, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) met with former vice president Vincent Siew (蕭萬長), President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) envoy to the summit. Speaking about a timetable for cross-strait political negotiations, Xi emphasized that the problems caused by long-term political disagreements between Taiwan and China must eventually be resolved and that these problems cannot be left to future generations. Xi also said that leaders from both sides can meet and exchange ideas on cross-strait issues.
These are the most politically significant statements on cross-strait issues Xi has made since coming to power. Xi’s comments about how problems cannot be further avoided shows that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) authorities are extremely eager to start political negotiations with Taiwan. Also, Xi’s special emphasis on leaders from both sides being able to meet leaves a lot of room for us to imagine the possibility of a meeting between Ma and Xi at next year’s APEC summit.
The APEC summit is the only meeting organized by international organizations that Taiwan attends at the national leader level. As a result, when former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was in office, various approaches were attempted to secure chances for Chen to attend as Taiwan’s national leader. In 2005, Taiwan and China discussed the possibility of a meeting between Chen and former Chinese president Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) during that year’s APEC summit. However, because both sides were unable to come to a consensus on what “one China” meant in practice, Chen refused to attend as a regional representative of “Chinese Taipei,” and the possibility of a meeting between Chen and Hu vanished.
Now, the cross-strait political situation has gone through even bigger changes. In June this year, Ma authorized former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄), during a visit to China, to accept Xi’s proposal of a “one China” framework. The Ma administration has kept on emphasizing the so-called “1992 consensus,” so much so that there is no chance of “each side having their own interpretation” of what that means. Judging from the way Siew mentioned the “1992 consensus,” while Xi only talked about the “one China” framework during the APEC summit, it is clear that the CCP’s stance toward “one China” is strengthening.
Ma’s low approval ratings and the doubts surrounding the illegal wiretapping scandal that pitched him against Legislative Speaker Wang Jyn-ping (王金平) have seen Ma once again lose badly here at home politically, and he has been forced to temporarily seek peace by backing off. However, given how obsessed Ma is with his legacy, we have to be extra cautious of Ma making abrupt moves when it comes to cross-strait issues.
The political implications of Ma sending Mainland Affairs Council Minister Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) along to the APEC summit are self-evident, just as the CCP’s attempts to organize a meeting between Ma and Xi during next year’s APEC summit have long been an open secret in both Taiwan and China.
However, the CCP is not giving away any free lunches and Ma is unlikely to recklessly sign a cross-strait peace agreement with China. As a result, the biggest likelihood is that the KMT and the CCP will use a joint declaration to reach an interim political agreement before the next APEC summit. When that happens, Xi will enter the next APEC summit as leader of “one China” with its protectorate called “Chinese Taipei,” represented by Ma. Once this happens, there will be no turning back for Taiwan.
Hung Chi-kune is a member of the Democratic Progressive Party’s Central Executive Committee.
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
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