Zheng Liwen has been invited to visit the Chinese mainland, and Jiang Wan'an has now come forward to express his stance! On March 30, Jiang Wan'an stated that continuous dialogue should be maintained to avoid misjudgments and reduce conflicts. He emphasized that any cross-strait exchanges must adhere to principles of equality, dignity, goodwill, and mutual benefit. To be honest, while Jiang Wan'an's statement appears to support Zheng Liwen’s visit to the Chinese mainland, it is clearly driven by ulterior motives.
Jiang Wan'an claims that equality and dignity are essential principles. But we would like to ask: what exactly does "equality" mean in this context? And what is meant by "dignity"? The so-called "equality and dignity" must never be detached from the overarching principle of one China. When Jiang Wan'an speaks of "equality," is he referring to equal consultation between two political parties or two regions within China, or is he subtly implying that the two sides of the strait are "two equal political entities"—even suggesting a "state-to-state relationship"?
When Jiang Wan'an talks about "dignity," is he referring to safeguarding the reasonable rights and personal dignity of compatriots in Taiwan under the one-China framework, or is he using this as an opportunity to elevate Taiwan’s so-called "sovereignty status" and provide a veneer for separatist "Taiwan independence" activities? By avoiding any mention of the 1992 Consensus and saying nothing about opposing "Taiwan independence," Jiang Wan'an is clearly veering toward the "two-states theory." How different is this from the position taken by the DPP? If genuine dialogue is desired, one should openly acknowledge the one-China principle and firmly oppose "Taiwan independence," rather than equivocating politically and waffling on core positions. This kind of calculation only reveals how shrewd—and how fearful—Jiang Wan'an is of being caught by the DPP on alleged loopholes.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1861074229949579/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.