Cross-Strait Relations under Ma’s Administration and the Prospect of a Peaceful Settlement

---

Introduction: The Cross-Strait Relationship Before Ma’s New Administration

The triangular relationship among the Republic of China, People’s Republic of China, and the United States is like a kaleidoscope. The size of the picture remains the same, but the composition of the picture can change slightly as each individual turns the wheel. Observers of this triangular relationship are sometimes astonished by what they see, even though the changes are limited.

First let me explain to you the limitations, or the scope, of the changes. If we examine the triangular relationship closely, we can see that a pattern has been established. Let’s look at the position of the PRC. Since the end of the civil war in 1949, the PRC has insisted on its policy towards Taiwan. It claims that Taiwan is part of China, and it continues to push for reunification. At the same time, the PRC insists that it will not relinquish the option of using force as a last resort. This policy has stubbornly guided the PRC’s approach to the issue of reunification.

The Republic of China, or Taiwan, on the other hand, has made some modifications toward the unification issue based on domestic conditions. In the early days, first during Chiang-kai Chek’s era, Taiwan not only agreed that it was part of China, but claimed that it represented the legitimate Chinese government. At that time, Taiwan did not relinquish the option of using force to win the civil war. As time has gone by, the return to China and winning the civil war has become unrealistic for Taiwan. The son of Chiang-kai Chek, Chiang Chin-kuo, took a more realistic approach toward the question of reunification. During that period, Taiwan claimed that the government had lost its civil war, but not its status. So Taiwan demanded equal status with China in reunification negotiations.

Due to domestic pressure, Taiwan began to shift its policy and backed down on its claim of jurisdiction over China. The hope was that China would act accordingly and end its jurisdictional claims over Taiwan. But in the end this strategy did not work. China understood the goal of Taiwan’s actions, so its position remained the same: Taiwan is part of China.

Then, President Lee Teng-hui took over as the leader of the Republic of China. His policy was based on a double standard. He publicly claimed that he supported the traditional approach to negotiations with China, but in reality he pursued Taiwan’s independence. The DPP won the presidential election in 2000, even though the margin for the new president, Chen Shui-bian, was small. Chen started to push harder for Taiwan’s independence from China and claimed that Taiwan was already an independent state.

As we can see, Chen’s strategy was to separate Taiwan from China. Domestically, he pushed for Taiwanization and cut off connections with mainland China. Internationally, he pushed for Taiwan’s membership to the United Nations. As everyone knows, only independent sovereign states can be members. His strategy clearly violated the One-China Policy, which is advocated by China and accepted by the United States. During his time, this made the relationship with the United States unstable—so much so that President Bush even called Chen Shui-bian a “troublemaker.” As a result, the efforts that had been made to soften the relationship in the previous administration vanished. President Chen’s term ended in 2008 .
Political Rivalries and Policy Differences During the 2008 Election
The main purpose of this paper is two-fold. First, we need to examine current cross-strait relations through the ever-changing kaleidoscope. Second, we need to forecast the prospects for the future. From 2000-2008, under the leadership of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) President Chen Shui-bian, maintenance of power was the main objective. In order to do this, Chen generated support from voters by playing the ethnicity card; that is, he worked vigorously to generate national pride among the citizenry. In doing this, he provoked mainland China by pushing for Taiwan’s independence. The Chinese leaders understood the game President Chen was trying to play, and they reacted forcefully by continuing to warn Taiwan that a separatist policy would not be tolerated .

The new presidential candidate for the DPP was Frank Hsieh. He and his campaign advisers felt that the time was right for them to push for Taiwan’s independence. He openly advocated in his campaign platform that if he won, he would change the national flag and anthem and redraft the constitution. He even advocated changing the name of the country. His opponent was Kuomintang (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou. Ma took a different stand toward China. He understood that the political stability and the economic prosperity of Taiwan depended on stable relations with China. He strongly believed the DPP policy towards China would lead to war. In all actuality, he was right because during the 50-some years of separation between China and Taiwan, China never went back on its “One China Policy” despite having changed leadership several times. Its fundamental policy towards Taiwan remained steadfast; that is, Taiwan would not be granted independence and China would not relinquish its authority to use force in the event that Taiwan did declare independence. Many scholars, and with some justification, portrayed this election as a choice between war and peace (3).

The election results confirmed that the people did not want a war with China. On March 22, 2008, over 13 million voters (76% voter turnout) came to the polls, and with 58.45% of the votes KMT candidate Ma Ying-jeou won the presidential election. Frank Hsieh received only 41.55% of the votes. With this mandate, after Ma’s inauguration he vigorously pushed for better relations with China (4).

Accomplishments under Ma’s Administration

Let us now highlight some of what has been accomplished in the last two years.

The very first thing President Ma did was resume negotiations and dialogue between the Straits Exchange Foundation and the Association for Relations across the Taiwan Straits. Based on this policy, both organizations exchanged visits, which resulted in direct negotiations. Within a short time, 14 agreements were reached. To give some examples: there are now cross-strait weekend charter flights, and Chinese tourists are now allowed to visit Taiwan; restrictions on the “Mini-Three Links” have been lifted; there have been adjustments and easing of regulations governing cross-strait securities investment; five Chinese local media agencies are now allowed to station reporters in Taiwan; county magistrates and city mayors are now able to visit the mainland for exchanges; and there has been a relaxing of restrictions on public listing in Taiwan by overseas enterprises and appropriate allowances for mainland capital to be invested in Taiwan’s stock market.

On June 29, 2010, Taiwan and China signed the ECFA Treaty or the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (5). More specifically, it is a preferential trade agreement between China and Taiwan which eliminates tariffs and other commercial trade barriers. It is considered to be the most significant agreement between the two sides since they split after the Chinese Civil War in 1949. On the surface, the signing of this agreement will economically benefit both sides and the Asian region. However, there is a hidden motivation. It is theorized that trade partners rarely engage in military confrontation, but we cannot overlook the political and security implications of this agreement.

The brief description given above only deals with part of President Ma’s policy toward Mainland China. Earlier this year, President Ma was interviewed by CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour (6). President Ma reinstated his so-called “maintain the status-quo approach.” To him, maintaining the status quo will serve the interests of the Taiwanese people the best. He stressed in his interview that under his administration there will be no independence but also no unification. He also stated that he will continue to pursue better relations with China with the hope that doing so will release the previous tensions created by the DPP administration. Furthermore, he wants to expand cooperation in other areas such as education, culture, etc. In the meantime, he hopes China will relinquish the use of force as an option to solve the Taiwan issue. He then stressed the importance of continued arms sales from the United States to Taiwan, referencing the fact that China is a rising power both militarily and economically.

Overall, if we look through the kaleidoscope of cross-strait relations under Ma’s Administration, we can see that these are more stable, progressive, and optimistic.

The Obstacles to Peaceful Unification

Just as with any other human event, we need to deal not only with the present but also the future. The future includes elements of uncertainty. When we look at current cross-strait relations we witness an exciting and encouraging picture. Unfortunately, when we look at the future we have to look through a crystal ball. The picture seen in a crystal ball is not clearly defined, which makes it difficult to understand what will take place in the future. However, as with any issue, two vital elements will determine the outcome of the dispute, namely, the intentions of the parties and the nature of the issues. These are the two elements that will determine the picture in the crystal ball.

1.) The Intentions of the Parties
It would be naïve to think that once negotiations begin the dispute will be settled. In a case where disputing parties are urged to reach an agreement to serve their interests, the negotiation process will be short, sweet, and productive. In a case where one of the parties has no intention of reaching an agreement to settle the dispute, then the negotiation process will be hard, long, and useless. As the old Chinese proverb says, “You can recognize people by their face, but you can never recognize the hidden intentions of others.” Yet the intentions of the parties are essential to any settlement.

As we examine President Ma’s policy towards China, his so called “maintain the status quo” approach can only serve in a transitional period. In order to satisfy the voters in Taiwan, his hands are tied. Take, for instance, the fact that he cannot openly talk about unification with China. To many voters in Taiwan, pursuing unification would betray the interests of Taiwan (7). On the other extreme, if the DPP candidate won the presidential election in 2012, this stable and progressive relationship with China would be altered, because the DPP party platform is to pursue Taiwan’s independence. If this were to happen, the relationship would return to square one. The other party, of course, is China and it should be known that it advocates unification. All in all, the picture in the crystal ball is bleak because the intentions of each party are different. There is not going to be the meeting-of-minds condition necessary to reach agreement. From this it should be clear that the lack of intention to reach an agreement in a political setting will be one of the chief obstacles to unification.

2.) The Nature of the Issues
Based on the theory of negotiation, we can divide issues into two categories. The first is a non- zero sum issue. Simply speaking, non -zero sum means a win-win situation. Under this setting, negotiation is not only possible, but it is easy. For example, trade negotiations end up being a win-win situation for both parties because these allow for specialization, which results in more production and over time economies of scale. The second is a zero sum issue. This simply means that one party’s gain is another party’s loss. The gain and loss added together in such a negotiation is zero. These issues are vital to national interests. Neither party can afford to shy away from the table. One good example is the negotiation between Israel and Palestine. Israel’s existence brings about insecurity for the Palestinians and vice-a-versa. After so many years, an agreement has yet to be reached between the two sides. So to look at the crystal ball of negotiation between Taiwan and China over unification issues you have to really examine the nature of the issues. In the final analysis, the dispute is over the question of sovereignty. Moreover, the issue of sovereignty happens to be a zero-sum issue.

What has just been discussed should help in understanding the issue of sovereignty, which is chiefly responsible for creating the rift between China and Taiwan.

Sovereignty: A Zero-Sum Issue for China and Taiwan

According to the traditional concept of sovereignty, which was created by the 16th Century philosopher Jean Bordin and adopted by the Treaty of Westphalia , and under which the modern state system was created, the essential element of being a state is sovereignty. China had a civil war in 1949 and the country was divided into two entities: the People’s Republic of China on the mainland and the Republic of China on Taiwan. For the past 60 years, China and Taiwan have fought over the issue of sovereignty. Under the traditional concept of sovereignty, there are three characteristics: sovereignty is absolute; sovereignty is permanent, and sovereignty is indivisible. Accordingly, when both parties argue on the issue of sovereignty there is no room for negotiation. This is why we consider the issue of sovereignty to be zero sum. We can make this even clearer here. Under the “One China Policy,” insisted upon by China, China is the only entity allowed to enjoy sovereignty. So any approach that advocated One China-One Taiwan or Two Chinas will inevitably violate China’s concept of sovereignty.

China also advocates “one country, two systems” . This can be called the Hong Kong model. Taiwan has openly denied this approach by saying that Hong Kong is Hong Kong and Taiwan is Taiwan. Taiwan does not wish to be treated as a local entity, which does not have sovereignty. We have to understand that Hong Kong was a colonial territory of England. Hong Kong never enjoyed being a sovereign state. In the case of Taiwan, from 1949 to 1979 the United States and the majority of the members of the United Nations had maintained diplomatic relations with the Republic of China on Taiwan. With the help of the United States, the Republic of China had also maintained its seat on the Security Council of the United Nations. Later on, the United States and other friendly allies switched recognition, which forced the legal status of Taiwan to remain in question. The leaders of Taiwan admit that they lost the civil war, and they maintain that they have been betrayed by their former allies. However, they have never accepted that they have lost statehood. It is no wonder that the Taiwanese leaders have advocated the idea that Taiwan has been an independent state able to enjoy sovereignty.

From all of this, the conclusion can be made that the issue of sovereignty between China and Taiwan is zero sum because their positions are mutually exclusive; that is, one of the sides cannot exist with the other.

The Third Party: The Hidden Obstacle

When we look at the crystal ball we have seen two major obstacles to a peaceful settlement: namely, the lack of clear and forthright statements of intentions by the parties and the fact that the issue is zero sum. But the crystal ball also presents an invisible third party, the United States. Due to historical evolution, the United States plays a unique role in cross-strait relations. If we analyze carefully, the Taiwan-China relationship is not confined to just these two disputing parties. The United States seems to have played its way into the middle of the dispute between Taiwan and China. The decision-makers of the United States keep telling the world that the peace negotiations involve only China and Taiwan and that the United States will not interfere in their affairs. But let’s look at this issue more closely. The United State’s justification of its foreign policy towards China has been based on three communiqués with China . Under those communiqués the United States acknowledged the One-China Policy and would continue to improve relations with China. The United States also justified its relations with Taiwan based on the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. Under this piece of domestic legislation, the United States maintains only informal relations with Taiwan. However, to ensure the national security of Taiwan, the United States continues to sell defensive arms to Taiwan. Finally, in case China wants to use force to settle disputes with Taiwan; that Act notes that this would create grave concern to the United States. The last point may be the most significant one.

If you put these two sets of policies together, it simply means Taiwan cannot be independent and China cannot use force. This is exactly what the status quo is today. As we all know, every independent state will protect its own national interests in formulating its foreign policy. The United States is no exception. In actuality, this so-called status quo serves the United States the best. From this, it can be seen that the United States has two cards to play. It can play the China card against Taiwan or the Taiwan card against China. International politics is power politics. The United States, as a superpower, has the ability to create and maintain the status quo so long as it believes a unified China will not serve its best interests. If this paradigm is maintained, the status quo will continue.

In a case when two rival parties, for whatever reason, refuse to rationally negotiation, a third party often will intervene to serve as a mediator to get the disputing parties to resume their negotiations.

Unlike the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, the United States has no intention of establishing itself as a mediator in the China-Taiwan dispute because unification of China and Taiwan does not best serve the U.S. interests. This is much different from the Israeli conflict where the U.S. interests would be better served if a peaceful settlement could be reached. From my analysis, the United States has not been actively promoting unification between Taiwan and China. If Taiwan and China are really thinking about a peaceful resolution, they have to act on their own accord. But due to the nature of the issues, they have to be creative and imaginative on the concept of sovereignty. Actually, in 1992, both parties signed an agreement called the 1992 Consensus under which a principle was established. As far as the issue of one China was concerned, each party could have its own interpretation . This 1992 Consensus should be examined and put into practice.

The Possible Solution to the Sovereignty Issue

Sovereignty is the major issue between these two governments. Under the traditional concept of sovereignty there is no peaceful solution available. The solution between these two rivals rests on the new interpretation of sovereignty. We have to keep in mind that the traditional concept of sovereignty was introduced in the 16th century. Now we are living in the 21st century. Many conditions have caused the traditional concept of sovereignty to fade somewhat. A few examples can be cited to illustrate this phenomenon. For instance, the issuance of money is a valid display of the sovereignty of a state. The United States by no means would accept another currency to replace the U.S. dollar. However, if you look at the European Union, you see a much different picture. The euro is now the currency for most European nations. This is because it represents a common interest of the European countries. These countries are willing to tolerate the existence of the euro rather than exercising their right to have their own individual currencies.

Let’s look at the war against international terrorism. Allowing foreign troops to station and fight within the borders of another country is a clear violation of that state’s sovereignty. Yet our leader tried to convince the world that the war against terrorism was a war to be fought on a universal front. So we asked other nations to refrain from exercising their sovereignty. There are other issues that follow this same pattern. Some of them include world hunger, global warming, economic crises, and human rights. These issues demonstrate that the concept of sovereignty has changed somewhat.

The point I am trying to make is to show that we are living in a more complicated world. No individual sovereign state can solve its problems alone. Isolation is no longer an option. International and global corporations will create win-win situations. If China and Taiwan continue to focus on the traditional concept of sovereignty, they will never be able to reach a peaceful solution. Chinese people on both sides will pay a high price. The examples are there, and the leaders from both sides should be more creative and imaginative on this sovereignty issue.

In essence, the wisdom of downplaying the traditional concept of sovereignty does not mean relinquishing one’s sovereignty, but rather not exercising it. Let us further examine the advantages of the tolerance of sovereignty.

1.) This theory does not exist only on paper. It has been widely used by international communities. The examples we mentioned before prove this, and if other countries can do it, then so can Taiwan and China. If both China and Taiwan are willing to compromise, this will allow both sides to achieve the common good for its people. In reality, we cannot live based on pure ideology. We have to be more practical.
2.) This theory is also flexible. More specifically, a country will have the discretion to decide what it will tolerate in terms of issues, the scope of the issues, and the time period associated with these issues. It is important to note that in foreign policy flexibility is a key element.
3.) This theory allows countries to control their own destiny. The initiative to make decisions rests solely in the hands of those countries making the decisions. Just as we stated earlier, based on the national interests of the country, decision-makers will have the ability to decide what they will and will not tolerate.
4.) This theory also has an inclusive nature, which includes China’s position of “One country, two systems” and Taiwan’s position of “One Taiwan, two systems.” Furthermore, it is also inconsistent with the 1992 Consensus. When you look at “One country, two systems,” logically speaking, one country should have one system. When you advocate for two systems you automatically accept the existence of others. We also have to look at Taiwan’s position, which illustrates today’s reality. Both sides have to accept the existence of one another. The 1992 Consensus even mentions “non-denial” of either country, which suggests the acceptance of both countries. It follows then that to accept these new principles, you do not have to reject the other principles.
5.) There is one concern with this theory and it relates to Chinese culture; that is, the Chinese care deeply about face. If you openly promote this theory, it sounds like one side is being forced to tolerate the other side. The other side might overreact by denying tolerance. To avoid this unnecessary consequence, this theory should be used practically rather than as a propaganda tool. If both sides understand that accepting this theory will benefit them in the long run, they will more easily get used to the idea of tolerance.

We are living in the 21st century. Recent history has proven that war is no longer an effective instrument of policy to settle disputes between parties. War has become more costly and destructive in terms of property damage and human suffering. Based on some military calculation, if a war broke out between Taiwan and China, they both would set themselves back one hundred years. Neither side can afford that kind of fate. A wise historian once said, “A happy people usually have a dull history.” The Chinese are not a happy people because their history is filled with excitement. I hope the leaders from both sides can utilize their creativity and wisdom to solve this tough issue so that a peaceful chapter in history can be written.