CONCILIATORY ENOUGH?
Mr Lai stated unequivocally in his speech that he does not seek to change the status quo, where Taiwan enjoys substantive autonomy in all matters but does not declare formal independence or separation from a notional 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 strait were “not subordinate to each other” and called on Beijing to stop coercing and bullying Taiwan and to instead engage on terms of mutual respect while underscoring Taiwan’s engagement with the world, themes previously touched on during the election campaign.
Leaders in Beijing are unlikely to heed this call and have indeed announced military exercises to “punish” what they claim is in response to “separatist acts”.
Importantly, unlike Ms Tsai when she became president, Mr Lai did not make indirect reference to the “1992 Consensus” in his speech.
The supposed consensus – an unofficial understanding that Taipei and Beijing agree there is only “one China”, but the two sides may disagree as to its meaning – was formally adopted as 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”.
