Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Minister Katharine Chang (張小月) on Wednesday expressed her hopes of meeting with Liu Jieyi (劉結一), who has been tapped to head China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO), and resuming a disconnected hotline with her Chinese counterparts.
The MAC, established in August 1988 as the Inter-Agency Mainland Affairs Committee under former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) premier Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村), facilitates relations with China in the absence of official ties between the two nations.
These relations are conducted on the basis of the “one China” principle and the so-called “1992 consensus.” Former MAC chairman Su Chi (蘇起) in 2006 said that he had made up the term “1992 consensus” — a tacit understanding between the KMT and Beijing that both sides of the Taiwan Strait acknowledge that there is “one China” — in 2000.
Unofficial exchanges between the MAC and the TAO therefore represent a sort of compromise. Such a compromise is acceptable to the KMT, which has always expressed its goal as working toward eventual unification with China, but for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration, it is unworkable, as the DPP does not accept the “one China” principle or the “1992 consensus,” which China has made prerequisites for dialogue.
A lack of consensus on these issues means that the MAC, as well as the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) that it administers, are impotent.
Even Chang, an independent, acknowledged this when she responded to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) reiteration of Beijing’s determination to quash any Taiwanese pro-independence forces. She said it would be difficult for Beijing’s unilaterally constructed “one China” principle to win public recognition in Taiwan.
Premier William Lai (賴清德) also reiterated the DPP’s position when he said at the Legislative Yuan on Sept. 26 that “Taiwan is a sovereign nation ... We need not subject ourselves to a framework imposed by a superpower and there is absolutely no reason to care about certain people’s remarks.” Lai at the time called himself “a politician who supports Taiwanese independence.”
While the MAC facilitated China-Taiwan relations under the KMT, it hinders the DPP’s aims of moving in the opposite direction — toward internationally recognized independence.
Its name suggests that China represents the “mainland” portion of the same nation as Taiwan. Its role of facilitating unofficial exchanges suggests that China and Taiwan are not actually two distinct nations.
Although the council could be renamed the “China Affairs Council,” Beijing would still insist on the “one China” policy and the “1992 consensus,” undermining a move toward independence.
China requires everyone, not just Taiwan, to accept the “one China” principle — this is a core tenet of its foreign relations policy. It is why the US had to drop Taiwan under former US president Jimmy Carter to establish ties with Beijing.
A healthy, sustainable relationship with China that recognizes two sovereign states would only be possible if Beijing abandoned its tough stance.
Whether this happens should not impede the democratic will of Taiwanese. The DPP should continue to make clear to Beijing that it is open to political, economic and cultural exchanges, but should insist on such exchanges recognizing Taiwan’s sovereignty and independence.
Naturally, Taiwan must first clearly establish this sovereignty and declare to the world that it has no intention of ever unifying with the People’s Republic of China. Once Taiwan has clearly and resolutely established its sovereign independence, relations with Beijing can be normalized with the installing of embassies in Taipei and Beijing.
In the interim, the MAC and the SEF have no purpose and merely serve to confuse the intentions of Taiwan.
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