Skip to main content
  • 395 Accesses

Abstract

This book explores the dynamics of party politics in Taiwan and cross-Strait relations over the past decade. While power transfer from the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) back to the pro-status quo Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, KMT) in 2008 ushered a great leap in the development of cross-Strait relations in the following years, the DPP’s coming back to power in 2016 has reversed the trend and brought back a “cold peace” between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, reminiscent of the period of the Chen Shui-bian administration between 2000 and 2008. Social cleavage and partisan confrontation on the island have justified Beijing’s strategy of selective engagement with the two main parties within Taiwan. The state of cross-Strait relations, therefore, has become a by-product of volatile party politics on the island. In other words, to understand the dynamic party politics in Taiwan in terms of power relations between the two main parties and the nature of their political interaction (convergence or divergence) is a key to understand the volatile cross-Strait relations over the past decade and beyond.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Richard Bush, Uncharted Strait: The Future of China-Taiwan Relations (Brookings Institution Press, 2013); Richard Bush, Untying the Knot: Making Peace in the Taiwan Strait (Brookings Institution Press, 2005); Dafydd Fell, Government and Politics in Taiwan (Routledge, 2012); Shelley Rigger, Why Taiwan Matters (New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011); Alan Romberg, Across the Taiwan Strait: From Confrontation to Cooperation (2006–2012) (Washington, DC: Stimson, 2012); Rein In at the Brink of the Precipice: American Policy Toward Taiwan and U.S.-PRC Relations (Washington, DC: The Henry L. Stimson, 2003); Scott L. Kastner, Political Conflict and Economic Interdependence Across the Taiwan Strait and Beyond (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009); Nancy Tucker, Strait Talk: United States-Taiwan Relations and the Crisis with China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009); Alan Wachman, Way Taiwan?—Geostrategic Rationales for China’s Territorial Integrity (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007); Yana Zuo, Evolving Identity Politics and Cross-Strait Relations: Bridging Theories of International Relations and Nationalism (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016). The time frame of Zuo’s book is from 1945 to 2008, divided by two historical events in 1988 and 2000.

  2. 2.

    Both the KMT and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) agree that there has been a consensus between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait since 1992, when the two semi-official institutions—the mainland-based Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) and Taiwan-based Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF)—used the same terms such as “one-China principle” and “striving for national reunification” in their written communications. However, they disagree on whether the meaning of “one China”—which side represents China—can be expressed differently. Su Chi, former chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council in Taiwan, created the term 1992 consensus in 2000 to encapsulate the KMT’s original idea of “one China with different interpretations” (gezi biaoshu) of its meaning. Beijing, on the other hand, interprets the 1992 consensus as a tacit agreement on the principle of one-China principle without touching upon its specific meaning (gebu biaoshu). The DPP has refused to accept the 1992 consensus for many years but has not denied it either in the past few years. In addition, Tsai Ing-wen employed the language of “joint acknowledgement of setting aside differences to seek common aground” reached during “the 1992 talks” between the SEF and the ARATS to beat around the bush without accepting the core meaning of the 1992 consensus.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gang Lin .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lin, G. (2019). Introduction. In: Taiwan’s Party Politics and Cross-Strait Relations in Evolution (2008–2018). Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5814-2_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics