Reunification must and will be realized

In a speech commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Message to Compatriots in Taiwan on Jan 2, President Xi Jinping said the 1992 Consensus embodies the one-China principle, and elaborated on major policies on the reunification of Taiwan with the motherland, which is at the heart of the Chinese Dream of national rejuvenation. In more ways than one, Xi’s speech serves as a guideline for national reunification.

But, in response, Taiwan leader Tsai Ing-wen said she has never accepted the 1992 Consensus and will never accept “one country, two systems”. Later, she even misinterpreted the 1992 Consensus as “one country, two systems”. Through her remarks, Tsai has once again exposed her antagonism toward the mainland while being blind to the continuous efforts Beijing has made to promote peaceful reunification.

Besides, she and her party, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, have been instigating “pro-independence” forces on the island in a show of defiance against the mainland.

The 1992 Consensus is the political basis for exchanges and cooperation between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits, and between political parties and groups, before the goal of national reunification is realized. And “one country, two systems” is the institutional arrangement after reunification.

How can the two different concepts be connected, let alone be treated as one? And what is Tsai’s ulterior motive behind confusing the two concepts?

Compared with the 1992 Consensus, the “one country, two systems” principle is more stigmatized in Taiwan. And Tsai’s misinterpretation of the 1992 Consensus as “one country, two systems” could put Kuomintang in a disadvantageous position in the coming elections, because it adheres to the 1992 Consensus.

Tsai also said the overwhelming majority of the Taiwan residents will not accept the mainland’s formula. And the DPP issued a statement saying, “we must face up to the fact that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country”. According to the Tsai administration, reunification is about changing the current “sovereignty status quo”, and therefore it should first get the consent of the 23 million Taiwan residents.

But the fact is that since reunification is integral to the Chinese nation’s sovereignty, security and development interests, it should be decided by 1.4 billion Chinese people, including 23 million Taiwan residents. It’s obvious that the Tsai administration is using “democracy” and “public opinion” to shift the onus of “rejecting reunification” on Taiwan compatriots. Tsai’s argument is preposterous mainly for two reasons:

First, the definition of crossStraits “status quo” is in itself wrong because Taiwan has never been a “sovereign independent state”. And second, it is an abuse of “democracy” and goes against the original intention of “democratic referendum”.

No law grants a local administrative region the right to unilaterally alter its “legal status” by simply invoking the issue of “people’s sovereignty”. The argument that “Taiwan’s future should be determined by its 23 million residents” is a garbled reference to the theory of “people’s sovereignty”, and thus is untenable both in academic and legal terms.

“Pro-independence” forces on the island deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent the mainland’s stance of not renouncing the use of force for reunification as “China threat”, in an attempt to confuse the public, and win the sympathy and support of the international community. The mainland has always pursued peaceful reunification and extended only goodwill to Taiwan compatriots.

As for the means of reunification, Xi said the mainland will strive to realize peaceful reunification with utmost sincerity and effort, but it will never tolerate “Taiwan independence” and reserves the option to take all necessary measures to achieve the national goal. His remarks are aimed at the external forces trying to interfere in crossStraits affairs and the small number of separatists on the island — and not at Taiwan compatriots.

Confusing right and wrong, Tsai, however, tried to describe the mainland’s stance that it will not “renounce the use of force” to realize national reunification as a threat to Taiwan and an attempt to coerce Taiwan people. According to the island’s “Central News Agency”, on Jan 8 White House National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis urged Beijing to stop “coercing” the island by threatening to use force for reunification, and instead start dialogue with its “democratically elected” government.

Following Marquis’ remarks, an official from Tsai’s office in the United States thanked the US and other like-minded countries for speaking for and supporting the people of Taiwan, and thus giving them more courage to stick to the path of “freedom” and “democracy”.

In fact, the Tsai administration frequently cites the example of “democracy” and “values”, and uses institutional and political differences between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits to show why reunification is not possible.

But, as Xi said, “different systems are not an obstacle to reunification, let alone an excuse for separation”. The Taiwan authorities use “democratic rejection of reunification” and “democratic rights” to oppose national sovereignty and cite the “opinion” of a small number of people to resist the will of all Chinese people. This is essentially an attempt to achieve “de facto independence” through “democratic separation”, which is a distortion of the original meaning of democracy.

The delay in reunification has caused great harm to the interests of the people of the mainland, and is not at all conducive to safeguarding national sovereignty. This goes against legal principles and hurts the feelings and interests of all Chinese people. The issue of reunification is not simply the issue of democracy, nor is it something that can be determined by Taiwan people alone.

Allying with the US to confront the mainland has been Tsai’s consistent policy. But her administration is facing tough challenges, especially after the DPP’s defeat in county and city heads elections in November and Xi’s speech on peaceful reunification. Under such circumstances, she is more likely to act as a pawn in the hands of the US to counter the mainland, as she considers the US the only power that can help prevent reunification.

Tsai’s approach suits the needs of some Beijing hawks in the US, because while Taiwan wants to play the “US card”, the US wants to play the “Taiwan card”. It is not hard to guess that US-Taiwan relations will deepen in the future, as the US is the most important external factor affecting peaceful reunification. In his speech, Xi did not rule out the use of force to realize national reunification, especially because some external forces, mainly the US, are trying to the interfere in cross-Straits affairs.

The Tsai administration and the DPP are likely to make more efforts to resist national reunification. However, as Xi pointed out in his speech, reunification is the trend of history that no person or force can stop, and reunification must and will be realized.

Hopefully, political parties, organizations and people on both sides of the Straits, on the basis of the one-China principle, will conduct dialogue and communicate with each other on political issues including peaceful reunification at an early date.

The author is director of the Center for Cross-Straits Relations at Renmin University of China.