The annual meetings of China’s rubber-stamp parliament are eagerly watched by officials, academics, pundits and others for portents of the year(s) ahead. Speeches at China’s National People’s Congress and comments made on the sidelines are parsed, deconstructed and turned backward and forward in hopes of figuring out: “What do they really mean?”
Decoding Beijing’s utterances can be as difficult as deciphering the oracle bones at Taiwan’s National Palace Museum. A couple of messages this week, however, appear to be crystal-clear.
The first addresses the long-hoped-for — by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) at least — meeting between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Ma administration officials, including the Mainland Affairs Council, have been hoping that this year’s APEC leaders’ summit in Beijing would provide an opportunity.
China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) Vice Chairman Sun Yafu (孫亞夫) said on Tuesday that Beijing had ruled out an international setting for the potential meeting, but was open to holding it in a third location. However, the meeting’s agenda would have to be defined in advance, he said, indicating that Beijing was not interested in getting together “just to shake hands.”
Two days later, Sun’s boss — ARATS Chairman Chen Deming (陳德銘) — was even more succinct.
“I personally think that the core matter of the meeting is that everyone must see the ‘1992 consensus’ and ‘one China’ framework, that both sides belong to the same family and share a common ‘China dream,’” he said.
ARATS is just pretending to be open-minded by throwing Ma and the KMT a morsel with the “need to agree on the ‘1992 consensus,’” given that the foundation of the KMT and Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) rapprochement over the past decade is a shared reliance on a piece of propaganda dreamed up by a KMT hack in 2000 just before the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) took power in Taipei.
It does not take a seer or a code breaker to get Beijing’s message: Forget about an APEC confab and be prepared to follow Beijing’s version of “one China.”
Yet, as obtuse as ever, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) on Thursday said that “despite differing opinions, the council believes that APEC is still the ideal place for Ma and Xi to meet.”
People in Hong Kong appear to be quicker on the uptake than Wang. At least, they have been quicker to parse the message delivered by National People’s Congress head Zhang Dejiang (張德江) on Thursday in an address to congress delegates from Hong Kong.
According to the delegates, Zhang said “importing” Western-style democracy for the 2017 election of the territory’s next chief executive could lead to “disastrous” results. He said that candidates would have to “love” China, abide by Hong Kong’s Basic Law and not damage “the motherland’s sovereignty, safety and future development,” or the China-Hong Kong relationship.
One delegate said Zhang said copying a foreign electoral system could become “a democracy trap.”
Hong Kong democracy advocates have been pushing for open and public nominations for candidates for the post, as opposed to the selection of one candidate by Beijing-stacked committees. Beijing’s response is that while it may be willing to allow universal suffrage in the territory, it will continue to cherry-pick the candidate.
Beijing’s tea leaves are there for everyone to read: Zhongnanhai is never going to allow Xi to meet with Ma on equal terms because to do so would be to acknowledge Taiwan’s sovereignty; it continues to equate democracy with catastrophe, and it is only interested in working with those who share “a common ‘China dream.’”
Dream on.
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