Chinese leader has been delivering a New Year speech to the people in Taiwan ever since 1980. Xi’s 40th Anniversary speech to Taiwan contains a lot of sincere words and rational statements. He emphasized China’s unwavering goal of reunification across the strait and offered concrete suggestions for a peaceful reunification. Xi’s speech, to every Chinese people, is a speech of compassion, moral and justice and full of Chinese national sentiments. He explained the history of Taiwan as an inseparable part of China. He warns sternly against the external interference about the cross-strait affairs. Xi thoughtfully explained the international situation, the significance of the Chinese cultural revitalization and the resolve of reunification in the hearts of Chinese. He recalled the political changes in the past 70 years and pointed out ‘the 1992 Consensus' and ‘seeking common ground and tolerating differences’ is the only right approach. He also pointed out the mutual benefits achieved since the three links of post, commerce and travel opened across the strait. He said from now on the mainland’s Taiwan policy would be more mutual help, mutual win and mutual exploration of development opportunities, offering young people chances to achieve peaceful reunification. 

However, as an observer of Taiwan issues, I noticed Taiwan’s political changes towards anti-China and pro- independence and the current Tsai Administration’s rejection of ‘the 1992 Consensus’. The world witnessed China’s rise despite of the suppression attempts from the U.S., especially in her military development and industrial accomplishments. It seems that the ‘Taiwan Card’ which the U.S., Japan and Korea played had become uncoordinated and unsynchronized strategy probably futile but confusing. All of the above make the peaceful reunification very remote and uncertain. So, Xi’s speech although contained sincere words and compassion but also delivered an ultimatum. If Taiwan would not stop the independence push, reunification by military force would become the necessary alternative to peaceful reunification.

In Xi’s speech, there were five concrete points. We condense them below to facilitate our discussion on Taiwan’s response to them:
Pt. 1, work together for national revitalization and to realize peaceful reunification.
Pt. 2, research ‘a second political system’ for Taiwan (different from that of the Mainland) and enrich the possibility of peaceful reunification.
Pt. 3, insist on One China Principle and protect the future of peaceful reunification.
Pt. 4, deepen cooperation and integration across the strait and build the foundation of peaceful reunification.
Pt. 5, realize heart to heart and soul to soul reunion between people and increase acceptance of peaceful reunification. 

Xi called for open-arm interaction with any party, any business and any person for peaceful reunification but did not rule out using force if pro-independence activities would persist. The above points obviously aimed at achieving a peaceful reunification. However, whether the people in Taiwan will understand and accept these points or not really depends on I. how the Taiwanese feel as they are a part of China, II. how strongly they believe that their ‘West’ value system and liberal democracy will be forever superior, III. how deeply they believe that the U.S., Japan and South Korea will protect Taiwan in case of a military force reunification occurring, and IV. whether the Taiwanese have a Chinese national sentiment and a growing trust in Chinese communist party’s grand plan of revitalization and joint development. Unfortunately, The Taiwanese so far are fuzzy and unclear on these issues.

The official response from Taiwan to Xi’s speech was rapid as if they had prepared for it. Tsai Ying Wen for the first time delivered a New Year speech and she also made immediate response to Xi’s speech. In 2016 during her campaign and after she won the presidential election, she made fuzzy statements regarding cross-strait issue but her actions were clear, avoiding discussion of ‘the 1992 Consensus’ but gearing up more anti-China and divorcing Chinese activities, following her party’s (DPP) strategy of buying time and deepening ‘Taiwan Independence’ policy. The 2018 local elections turned out a big defeat to DPP. Tsai regrettably resigned her party chairmanship but seemingly leaning more towards the deep-green pro-independence faction. Her response to Xi’s speech had revealed her political intention. For the first time, she openly denied ‘the 1992 Consensus’. Although her words (four yes and four no conditions) were soft but she elected to take harder approach. Being afraid that Taiwan’s political parties, businesses and individuals would respond to Mainland China’s call for dialogue and cooperation, she declared that the cross strait issue and interaction is within national government jurisdiction, any dialogue must be between governments, ‘endorsed by the Taiwan people’. 

In reality, the last local election in GaoXiong and other municipalities had already shown people wanting increased economic activities with Mainland and endorsing ‘the 1992 Consensus’; candidates accepted that got elected. But the national government may try to stop the interaction. Tsai and DPP still believe that more Taiwanese are pro-independence; they can be relied on though a risky call. Recently, some DPP members had voiced to replace Tsai for the 2020 election, that may be DPP’s plan of buying time to get another term under another Deep-Green pro-independence candidate. I think when Tsai used the words, ‘endorsement by the people of Taiwan’, she wasn’t very sure, but nevertheless, whether or not the people in Taiwan will have the will and guts to over-throw the DPP hold is still doubtful and deserve careful studies.

The former President Ma Ying Jie of Taiwan had also responded to ‘the 1992 Consensus’ and Xi’s speech, that is one China with two different views, to him it means the Republic of China (ROC). This has been Ma’s claims all along but without the ‘promoting reunification’ which Hong Xiu Zhu advocated. Ma as a law student and practitioner like to interpret issues on legal grounds. The U.S. and China relation of course was with ROC, tracing back before WW II (Potsdam Declaration and San Francisco Peace Treaty, although ROC was not a signatory). But KMT party (Ma’s party) can no longer represent ROC especially as an opposition party, thus in its contest with DPP, it had become a fuzzy party with no clear ‘reunification’ policy. In reality, the Constitution of ROC had lost its significance. Taiwan’s education and textbook revision had destroyed Taiwan’s history for young people. Legislature Yuan can only represent Taiwan, Penghu and King and Ma tiny islands, in no way supporting the Constitution’s claim of the entire China. Under the circumstance that most Taiwanese have no strong attachment to their country name, ROC, nor its jurisdiction issue, and most of the international community do not recognize ROC, Taiwan’s current political system clinching to ROC for fuzzy interpretation is a fool’s game. That is why, Taiwan had been played by others, so called allies and friends, as a chess piece or an ATM card for quick cash. In Xi’s speech, he said correctly, today belongs to young people, the young people across the strait must carry the burden to work for national revitalization and for reunification. But do the young people in Taiwan have that inspiration? Can the people in Taiwan correctly assess the chances and consequences of peaceful reunification versus reunification by force?

Xi’s 2019 New Year speech deserves all Taiwanese and Chinese people to read and ponder carefully!

​
Robert HC Tsao, former CEO of United Microelectronics Corporation, a pioneer of information technology in Taiwan, has recently released a video on YouTube making a simple and logical proposal to solve the cross-strait confrontation problem, known as ‘unification issue’, one perspective or as ‘Taiwan Independence’ issue, another perspective. There are numerous interpretations or opinions spanning across the two perspectives presenting a very confusing or muddled political discourse in Taiwan resulting in a chaotic political scene. Even though, the Taiwan issue had its origin as a Chinese domestic issue, the evolvement of ‘Taiwan problem’ since WW II has become an international problem with the U.S. having a deterministic influence and many other nations having a diplomatic revelation such as accepting one China policy and which China to recognize? Mr. Tsao’s video presented a clear discussion of the ‘Taiwan Problem’ and offered a simple proposal to solve the problem with consideration of the political positions of the two parties, DDP and KMT, and the party platform of the Republican and Democrat parties of the U.S. on the Taiwan issue. Mr. Tsao’s effort is plausible and his ‘impartial’ proposal deserves attention not only from the Chinese from both sides of the Taiwan Strait but also from Americans and Chinese Americans in the U.S. Mr. Tsao’s video is made in Mandarin, thus this article is written in English to broaden its audience and to engage additional discussions on different perspectives on the Taiwan issue inside and outside of Taiwan.

Mr. Tsao based his proposal and arguments on the following points:
      1. KMT has always advocated reunification but lack of feasible method thus adopted a fuzzy and useless policy of “not to reunify, not to be independent and not to resort on military action”. On the other hand, DPP has passed its platform regarding Taiwan’s future: Taiwan is a de-facto self governed society with a functioning government, any change of Taiwan’s status must be determined by all Taiwan citizens through referendum ballot. Based on the above, it is illogical to have a citizens’ referendum on Taiwan Independence but it is logical to have a citizens’ referendum on unification issue to determine how and when unification is feasible.
      2. On the other side, Mainland has passed an anti-separation law. In its Article 16 regarding Taiwan: the government shall use peaceful means to achieve reunification, fulfilling the benefits of the citizens on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and after reunification Taiwan can maintain self-governance.
    3. From the position of the U.S., the 2016 Republican Party Convention has passed the following resolution: Any question concerning Taiwan’s future must be determined by peaceful means and through dialogue obtaining all Taiwan citizens’ agreement. Whereas, the 2012 Democrat party Convention adopted the following resolution: The U.S. continue to adhere to one China policy and the Taiwan Relation Act, all disputes should be resolved with peaceful means with all citizens’ agreement and their maximum benefit.

Based on the above, Mr. Tsao argued logically, using citizens referendum with no time limit to determine the acceptance of reunification under what appropriate conditions is a feasible approach to resolve the Taiwan issue. Only a minor modification on Taiwan’s referendum Law is required to facilitate such referendum. Both Mainland and Taiwan governments would be encouraged to apply peaceful means and to develop appropriate conditions to fulfill reunification.

Mr. Tsao’s proposal, although sounds logical, possibly meeting approvals of many people, but it faces challenges from the following oppositions:
A. A minority of people in Taiwan is not only resisting reunification under any condition but also practicing an anti-China ideology. This minority faction  has grown from Lee Deng-Hui’s era and has influenced Taiwan’s two major parties creating an illogical and chaotic political atmosphere converting a domestic reunification issue to a hostile rebellion movement. So long as the Taiwan citizens are mesmerized by an illogical ‘hatred’ driven political movement, the reunification referendum proposal cannot be implemented.
B. Judging the positions of the Republican and Democrat parties, one observes that although both parties advocate peaceful means (dialogue and referendum) to settle Taiwan issue, the two parties have never genuinely promoted reunification. In fact, the Republican Party dropped the ‘One China Policy’ term in its party resolution in 2016 and the current US Republican Administration is doing the opposite against ‘reunification’. The US diplomatic plays and sales of military gears to Taiwan including offering submarine development assistance all indicated that the U.S. is changing her China and Taiwan policy revealing somewhat devious motive and hypocritical elements.

Mainland China’s concern on Taiwan’s using referendum to settle Taiwan issue is directly related to the above points. The core concern is that a small fraction of people in Taiwan may hijack the will of 23 million Taiwan citizens which in turn may rob away the desire of 1.4 billion Chinese citizens of a chance to achieve reunification. At this point, it is not whether or not the conditions for reunification are ripe; Mainland China has continuously offered benefits to Taiwan and Taiwan citizens, but the current Taiwan Administration is following a divisive and anti-China recipe to resist reunification. Knowing that Taiwan media and even the U.S. media to some extent can be manipulated; referendum balloting can hardly be trusted. Numerous international referendum events serve as proof of that - all international interferences in national referendum are for foreign benefits and not domestic benefits.

Recently, I have joined a US-China Forum organized fact-finding trip traveling through both Taiwan and Mainland China on the ‘reunification versus independence’ issue. From my observations, Taiwan problem has become a cancer (constant worries and many rush diagnoses and treatment proposals), the current chemo-treatment (political actions, election, referendum, etc) is destroying more internal organs than killing the cancer cells. The cancel cells are in the brain clouding clear thinking and muddying judgement and logic). Perhaps some herb medicine (education on Chinese history and media reform to quash fake news) is needed to cure the cancer. We hope and pray that the herb medicine is not too late and too slow to save Taiwan from parish, a highly probable scenario due to the possibility of “Taiwan Issue’ triggering a war in Asia.
 

Richard Chen

（美國）中美論壇社
US-China Forum, Inc.
8837 E. Las Tunas Dr., Temple City, CA 91780, U.S.A.
TEL: 310-710-1860    EMAIL: USChinaForum@ca.rr.com
us-chinaforum.org   us-chinaforum.com
 

February 1st, 2018

Dear Senator Feinstein ：

We, a group of concerned Chinese American citizens interested in promoting a long term better U.S.-China relation and a stable peaceful Asia-Pacific region, would like to pay our tribute to your valuable service in the Sensate for over a quarter century and furthermore to wish you continued success in seeking another re-election.

We are writing you to call your attention to consider voting “no” to S1051, Taiwan Travel Act (TTA) should it come to the full Senate for a vote.

This bill states that it should be the U.S. policy to: (1) allow officials at all levels of the U.S. government to travel to Taiwan to meet their Taiwan counterparts; (2) allow high level Taiwanese officials to enter the United States under respectful conditions and to meet with the U.S. officials; and (3) encourage the Taiwan Economic and Cultural Representatives Office and other instrumentalities established by Taiwan to conduct business in the United States.  The Department of State shall report to Congress regarding travel by the U.S. executive branch officials to Taiwan.

A similar bill has already passed the House as H.R.535 on 01/09/2018. We would like to point out the severity of outcome should the Senate follow suit and the President sign it into law.

We all know that the U.S.-China relations have been built on the understanding and commitment to the three communiqués signed by both sides (in 1972,1979 and 1982), and the security of Taiwan has been under the protection based on the Taiwan Relations Act (1979). These 4 historical documents have been the cornerstones and consistent bipartisan U.S. foreign policy since 1970’s.

The enactment of TTA would certainly signify that the U.S is in no uncertain term to scrap the three Communiques that serve as the foundation of the diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China. Should that happen, the hard-earned progress and the great contribution that U.S. made to the betterment of lives of the 1.4 billion Chinese people since 1978 after China’s open and reform effort would be all for naught. But, would TTA bring peace and stability to the people in Taiwan? We do not believe that it would. On the contrary, the TTA will almost certainly provoke China to no longer honor its tacit commitment to a peaceful reunification of Taiwan. Instead, China might very well try to rely on a short but deadly military attack.  Is the U.S. prepared to face such a confrontation?  Even if our mighty military can win eventually, are we willing to pay such a dear price?

The U.S.-China relation has been one of, if not the most important bilateral relations between the two countries. Since the early 70’s, China has become one of the top three powers of the world. This achievement is met sometimes with the encouragement of the U.S., sometimes not.  For example, China has committed substantially her military force to the peacekeeping mission of the United Nations. In fact, China has dispatched to date more military personnel to such honorable tasks than any other UN member nations!  China’s active participation of the UN effort deserves our praise and support.
 
This planet we live in is with limited resources with ever increasing populations.  We have common problems that require joint collaborations rather than fighting against each other. By voting “no” to TTA, We are much better off to treat China as a friend, partner or even a peaceful competitor than an enemy leading to mutual destruction.
 
Respectfully submitted,

​
 
Richard Chen 
Director of Communications
U.S.-China Forum



​