Feiren breaks down a New York Times article on the talks in Beijing between Taiwan and Chinese representatives centered on direct flights and Chinese tourism coming to Taiwan. Feiren makes a very important point:
Everyone knows that this is not about the 'economic relationship'. It's about affirming the 1992 Hong Kong consensus on One China by the simple fact of holding the talks. Of course these talks are political. Has the Times suddenly lost the ability to explain the news?I thought I'd reword that same thought in the way I was thinking about it last night: the KMT and Chinese assertion that these are not political talks, but purely economic, is absurd on the face of it.
If they were not political talks, why would there be a political pre-condition on meeting? The details of these flights have been on the table for years and the DPP was perfectly willing to meet and get things going. But the DPP refused to accept the "92 consensus" or any version of "One China." The KMT accepts this condition, so talks go forward. It's impossible to assert the talks aren't political. It's just politically disadvantageous to both the KMT and CCP to publicly focus on political issues.