Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) sparked controversy when she said that she could not say that the Republic of China (ROC) exists. Though she later played down the comment, she actually pointed out something essential in cross-strait relations — maybe it is time for Taiwan and China to recognize each other as sovereign nations.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was defeated in the Chinese Civil War against the Chinese Communist Party and fled to Taiwan. Taiwan and China — or the ROC and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) — have virtually become two separate countries, each with its own people, territory and government. However, over the past 66 years, the two sides have been pretending that the other does not exist. The PRC claims Taiwan as a breakaway province and considers the ROC authorities a local government, while, though Taiwan has recognized the PRC as a political entity, its laws still treat both sides as two “regions” of one country with two separate governments.
Thus, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) follows the so-called “1992 consensus,” saying that there is only “one China,” with each side interpreting “one China” in its own way. In simple words, the PRC could consider itself the “one China,” while the ROC could also consider itself the “one China.”
On the other hand, Hung, the KMT presidential hopeful, says that there is no need for “one China with each side having its own interpretation”; rather she insists that there is only “one China,” and the two sides should have the “same interpretation.”
Hung said she could not say that the ROC exists, otherwise she would be saying that there are two separate countries — the PRC and the ROC.
It is interesting because — whether one supports Taiwanese independence or unification with China — it is a fact that the ROC and PRC coexist and that is the way it has been for many decades.
In the past, when the ROC and the PRC refused to communicate, it was not too much of a problem for the two countries to pretend that the other did not exist; however, now that cross-strait exchanges are more frequent, such an idea is an important issue.
The two sides of the Taiwan Strait have been more or less at odds over the past few years — Beijing is angered when Taiwanese officials talk about nationhood, and Taiwanese are angered when Beijing claims Taiwan, or when the government removes symbols of the ROC before the arrival of Chinese officials.
Ma claims the “1992 consensus” as an important basis for maintaining a stable and peaceful cross-strait relationship. However, he must understand that peace under the “1992 consensus” could only be superficial and temporary, as the sovereignty issue might be put aside for now, but eventually has to be resolved.
It might be difficult to determine the future of Taiwan and China, but a good start might be for both sides to acknowledge the other’s sovereignty so that peace can be sustained.
If Taiwan and China accepted each other’s independence, then it would not be a problem for the two nations to merge if Taiwanese did at some point feel the need to merge with China, just as West and East Germany used to recognize each other as independent prior to their unification.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS