Pragmatic ENOUGH?
Mr Lai stated firmly in his statement that he does not request to change the status quo, where Taiwan enjoys substantial autonomy in all matters but does not declare official independence or separation from a theoretical China.
Mr Lai further emphasised that his administration is willing to accept working with any term for Taiwan that gives it sufficient dignity, peppering his speech with references to the” Republic of China” ( ROC), Taiwan’s official name.
At the same time, Mr Lai said the two sides of the sea were” not inferior to each other” and called on Beijing to prevent coercing and bullying Taiwan and to instead join on terms of mutual regard while underscoring Taiwan’s wedding with the world, themes recently touched on during the election campaign.
Officials in Beijing are unlikely to heed this phone and have really announced military exercises to “punish” what they claim is in response to” rebel acts”.
Interestingly, unlike Ms Tsai when she became leader, Mr Lai did not make direct reference to the” 1992 Understanding” in his speech.
The supposed compromise- an unofficial knowing that Taipei and Beijing agree there is only “one China”, but the two sides may agree as to its meaning- was officially adopted since policy by the Kuomintang’s Ma Ying-jeou when he secured the presidency in 2008. Beijing has never acknowledged Mr Ma’s framing of the” 1992 Consensus” in terms of “one country, different interpretations”.
Mr Lai’s DPP disagree as to whether there was a consensus, but Ms Tsai in her inauguration speech in 2016 said she “respect( s ) this historical fact” that quasi-official meetings occurred, and indicated a willingness to adhere to the broad spirit of cross-strait cooperation.
Of further note is Mr Lai’s direct reference to China as” China” rather than “mainland” or” the other side of the Strait”, which Beijing is likely to read as separatism. His predecessors generally avoided directly using the term” China” when referring to the country.
Repeated references to the ROC and an explicit acceptance that Taiwan will work with whatever name proves most convenient to its partners indicates Mr Lai’s openness to compromise. However, Mr Lai’s references to” China” and avoidance of discussion about the” 1992 Consensus” reflects an uneasiness about PRC efforts to re-define these concepts in terms of Beijing’s “one China principle”.