When Mainland Affairs Council Minister Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) met Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) Minister Zhang Zhijun (張志軍) in Nanjing, China, on Tuesday, they addressed each other using their formal titles. This direct meeting between the two official authorities in charge of cross-strait relations has taken the relationship to the next level, moving past the old formula of having all contacts channeled through the semi-official Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS). While this represented a breakthrough, it would be prudent not to draw any far-reaching conclusions because of the vast difference that exists between the two sides in terms of interests, values, politics and economics.
Prior to Wang’s departure, the legislature adopted a resolution stipulating that he should not discuss political issues or issue a joint statement with Zhang. This meant that there should be no closing consensus and that any conclusions should be the individual interpretation of each side. Apart from the significance of the formal procedure itself then, the meeting did not bring any major constructive advances.
With Taiwan wanting to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and China wanting to complete the follow-up talks to the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), chances are the two sides were talking past each other. China wants Taiwan safely within the “one China” framework before deciding whether it is willing to let it join any other economic organizations.
On the eve of the meeting, there was much talk about the possibility of an agreement on allowing Chinese students in Taiwan to join Taiwan’s health insurance system and Taiwanese students in China to enjoy Chinese medical insurance, as well as humanitarian visitation rights in China for Taiwanese. However, the two sides reached no decision on these issues and only agreed to work to find solutions. It is clear that the two sides are still measuring each other up and have no intention of making any substantive decisions. Wang may have wanted to come back with some kind of achievement in his bag, but the Chinese side was not willing to offer it to him.
In light of the legislative resolution, it was TAO that brought up political issues in the post-meeting press conference. By not responding to these statements and thus allowing China to score a point, Wang failed to fulfill his ministerial duties.
There was speculation that the Wang-Zhang meeting was an excuse to pave the way for a meeting between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) later this year, but it was not mentioned at the press conferences, making it difficult to guess whether the issue was ignored or if it was broached and the two decided not to announce it.
The Ma administration’s attitude prior to the meeting seemed to imply that it would go to any length to bring about a meeting between the president and his Chinese counterpart. These include its willingness to amend the senior-high school history course outline, the Control Yuan’s censure of the Cabinet for not using the nation’s official title and the Ministry of Education’s statement that Nanjing is the capital of the Republic of China — all of which were intended to pander to China. There is little possibility that Wang and Zhang did not discuss a Ma-Xi meeting, but since the time is not ripe, they tried to avoid a public backlash by keeping any such discussions under wraps.
In the future, all they need do is pick up their cellphones and call each other to discuss the conditions for a Ma-Xi meeting and, if necessary, offer a few concessions. This is the real nightmare that the legislature, the opposition and the public must do anything they can to avoid.
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