DPP’s ‘one China’ policy?
On Friday last week, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Secretary-General Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) stopped over in San Francisco and had a dinner meeting with the San Francisco Bay Area Taiwanese community. He shared with the audience stories from his routine business trip to Washington as an official representative of the party.
He said that as a representative, he is supposed to stay in Washington consistently, but with his position as secretary-general, he can only visit about once every two months or whenever it is necessary.
He said it was a productive trip to meet people and exchange messages.
He said the DPP has plenty of China policies, but none of them are the so-called “1992 consensus.”
A question about China was raised: There are three known “one China” policies: First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) says there is only “one China,” it is the sole recognized government and Taiwan is part of China; second, the Republic of China (ROC) says there is only “one China,” it is the sole recognized government and Taiwan is part of China; third, the US says there is only “one China,” the PRC is the sole recognized government and Taiwan is not part of China. What is the DPP’s “one China” policy?
Wu teased the questioner saying that there is one more policy: From Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who said: There is only “one China” and it should be added — one too many.
The DPP does not care how many Chinas there are, but believes Taiwanese sovereignty is owned by its people and the nation is already independent.
So it was puzzling for those in the audience who have studied the San Francisco Peace Treaty why Wu brought up Ko’s “one China” policy. Obviously Wu or the DPP has a better way to interpret the “status quo.” Maybe he is right and there are thousands of “one China” policies. However, as a potential governing party, the DPP needs to announce its policy and define the “status quo.”
Ko provides a constructive view of the “one China” policy. When asked about the “one country, two systems” idea, he said: Why not “two counties, one system?” Of course, the system he meant was the universal value of democracy.
When he was asked about the “one China” policy, he said it is not an issue because there is only “one China” recognized by the international community.
The “one China” policy has been repeated since the Shanghai Communique was signed and respected by the US Department of State as the firm foreign policy with which to deal with China. It specifies that all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait agree that there is only “one China,” which has been agreed to and accepted by both the ROC and the PRC, because they are Chinese. Wu is Taiwanese, so why does he oppose it?
As Taiwanese, we should be more than happy to see the two nations shaking hands and forgetting past betrayals and thoughts of revenge with a laugh.
It has been more than half a century since the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was kicked out by the Chinese Communist Party and fled to Taiwan in 1949. It is time for the ROC to go home to China and leave Taiwan alone. The ROC never owned Taiwanese sovereignty and all ROC adherents should appreciate the hospitality they have been shown all the years of their long stay in the nation.
“Worship a tree while eating its fruit, worship farms while eating rice. We need to remember the source when drinking water.”
Those in Taiwan who identify as Chinese, please have a heart and leave the nation alone.
Wu does not have the right or any need to carry the cross of civil war for China. Taiwan is not part of China. The ROC is Chinese who escaped to Taiwan as refugees in 1949 because they were defeated, but now Chinese on both sides are like brothers; it is time for them to have a reunion. Taiwan is not Chinese territory, it belongs to Taiwanese.
What is the bottom line in the DPP’s cross-strait negotiations? The KMT is a political party of China, not Taiwan, that is why it always hides behind the fabricated “1992 consensus.” Unless the DPP is also a political party of China, it should stop deceiving itself.
Taiwan is not the ROC, and the ROC is not Taiwan. It is time to endorse the US’ “one China” policy under the Three Joint Communiques (for the ROC and the PRC) and the Taiwan Relations Act (for Taiwan and the US). There is only “one China” and Taiwan is not part of it.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS