What Did Xi Jinping Say at the Closed-door Meeting? How Much Did Zheng Liwen Understand?

The height of Xi Jinping, the leader of the Chinese Communist Party, is considered a state secret. (Video screenshot)

[People News] April 10, 206. On our planet, three coordinate points are simultaneously staging an absurd drama that deserves to be recorded in history.

The first coordinate point is Beijing, specifically the East Hall of the Great Hall of the People. Kuomintang Chairman Zheng Liwen, radiating joy and smiling widely, shook hands with Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping for a full thirty seconds. In front of the flashing cameras, Zheng Liwen excitedly declared that her 'peace journey' was a resounding success, delivering a clear, unambiguous, and firm message of peace to Taiwan.

However, if we shift our focus southward to the second coordinate point, the Taiwan Strait, at the exact moment they were shaking hands, a hundred Chinese Communist military ships and coast guard vessels were densely deployed in the East China Sea and South China Sea, double the usual number; they also established a no-fly zone in the East China Sea that will last for 40 days.

If this is what is meant by 'clear and unambiguous peace,' then it is certainly not the kind of peace that the people of Taiwan desire.

Now let’s turn our attention to the third coordinate point—Taipei. What day is it today? It marks the 47th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. Bipartisan U.S. senators have travelled a long distance to sit in the Presidential Office and directly tell the Taiwanese government: hurry up and pass your special defence budget, as this is crucial for demonstrating your determination for self-defence to the world.

However, in the Legislative Yuan, the Kuomintang legislators collectively went 'missing,' leading to the collapse of budget negotiations.

On one side, Americans are anxiously jumping up and down, rushing to teach you how to save your life; on the other side, the chairman of Taiwan's largest opposition party has gone to Beijing to declare, 'The Taiwan Strait does not require external intervention.'

As soon as the cameras were ushered out, 'peaceful' negotiations began in the dark room.

Zheng Liwen had carefully prepared a lengthy press release of over three thousand words, detailing 'three directions and five points of advocacy' with a grand tone. She intended to showcase herself as a political leader capable of standing on equal footing with the highest leader of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and daring to fight for Taiwan's international presence in front of the global media. She even aimed to propose in person that Taiwan should return to the World Health Assembly and participate in the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

But what transpired?

Zheng Liwen sat there, cleared her throat, and had barely spoken a third of her speech when Taiwanese reporters and photographers present were directly asked to leave by CCP staff. The live broadcast signal was abruptly cut off, and the door was shut.

Let’s recall Lien Chan's 'Peace Journey' to Beijing in 2005, which was broadcast in full, allowing him to speak freely; he was genuinely treated as a significant negotiating counterpart.

But for you, Zheng Liwen, I’m sorry— even the opportunity to fully address the people of Taiwan and the mainland in front of the camera has been denied.

The CCP's message is crystal clear: you have recited the lines you were supposed to—'1992 Consensus, oppose Taiwan independence'—but the rest of what you wish to express, regarding Taiwan's subjectivity and international space, is nothing more than 'nonsense.'

The chairman of Taiwan's largest opposition party went to the mainland to 'seek peace' but ended up not even receiving a full broadcast of his speech. This reflects that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has drastically lowered its assessment of the Kuomintang's (KMT) value in terms of united front work, to the point where they can't even pretend to show the KMT any semblance of equality or respect.

In the afternoon, Zheng Liwen held a press conference for both domestic and foreign journalists at her hotel, radiating joy and smiling like a primary school student who had just received a little red flower. She told reporters, 'Oh, today's talks were incredibly successful! General Secretary Xi responded very positively, stating that everything can be discussed. The proposals I put forward, such as returning to the WHA and joining the TPP, were all said by the General Secretary to be open for comprehensive and active study and facilitation.'

Hearing this, the reporters were thrilled—this is major news! They quickly pressed for more details: What exactly was promised? Was there a written joint statement?

Zheng Liwen responded, 'I took very careful notes during the closed-door meeting, but of course, I couldn't record everything verbatim. However, it doesn't matter; for the relevant content, you can refer to Xinhua News Agency, as they will have a complete report.'

A leader of an opposition party, representing millions of votes, goes to negotiate with the Chinese Communist Party, and in the end, she actually directs the global media to the CCP's mouthpiece, Xinhua News Agency's press release, to validate her own 'diplomatic achievements'?

However, when people checked Xinhua News Agency, they found that the press release did not mention a single word about Zheng Liwen's proposals or the so-called commitments from General Secretary Xi. Even her own proud 'three directions and five points of proposals' were rendered 'waste' outside of the Xinhua News Agency's press release.

What do phrases like 'everything can be negotiated' and 'comprehensive and proactive research and cooperation' really mean? Aren't they just empty promises from Zhang?

Zheng Liwen also proudly shared a 'great discovery.' She mentioned that during a closed-door meeting, she brought up the 'Koo-Wang talks' (known as 'Wang-Koo talks' in mainland China), to which Xi Jinping replied: 'In fact, the discussions at that time made the content of the 1992 Consensus very clear. Unless one has a dark heart or is deliberately pretending to be confused, one should not be unaware of the true content of the 1992 Consensus, and there is no need to maliciously distort it.' 

Zheng Liwen might have thought that the significance of this statement lies in the original content of the 1992 talks, which could allow for 'each expressing verbally.' She believed that Xi Jinping was subtly acknowledging the Kuomintang's (KMT) interpretation of 'one China, each expressing their own views.' 

However, with a bit of critical thinking, it becomes clear that Xi Jinping's comment was aimed directly at you, Zheng Liwen, and the Kuomintang. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has a clear stance against the so-called 1992 Consensus, so there is no question of 'pretending to be confused' or 'malicious distortion.' The '1992 Consensus' is simply a tactic used by the Communist Party to pacify and stabilise the Kuomintang. If the Kuomintang genuinely believes it is being taken seriously by the Communist Party and tries to implement the '1992 Consensus,' from the Communist Party's viewpoint, that would be 'pretending to be confused' and 'malicious distortion.' 

Zheng Liwen stated that Xi Jinping expressed during the closed-door meeting: 'Social systems and political views can differ, but our common ancestors and the bloodline of our nation cannot be severed.' She interpreted this as a significant gesture of goodwill, suggesting that the Communist Party acknowledges that both sides of the Taiwan Strait can pursue their own institutional paths while respecting one another.

She seems to have forgotten that before Hong Kong's return in 1997, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) assured the people of Hong Kong: 'One country, two systems, fifty years unchanged, horses continue to run, dances continue to dance, and we respect Hong Kong's way of life.'

However, 20 years later, the National Security Law was suddenly imposed. The so-called 'different systems' were uprooted overnight; some were detained, some were arrested, and many fled. Hundreds of thousands of young people from Hong Kong have gone into exile overseas—they are acutely aware of their situation, and it pains them deeply.

Zheng Liwen seems to have forgotten who the architect of 'one country, two systems' is: Mao Zedong. He proposed this concept 70 years ago. How did Chiang Kai-shek respond back then?—' The Han and the bandits cannot coexist,' and negotiating would be tantamount to suicide.

By the time of Chiang Ching-kuo, it was made abundantly clear: the CCP does not honour its commitments, and any expectation that the CCP would allow Taiwan to maintain its own socio-economic system after unification is unrealistic.

As anticipated, the Xinhua News Agency's statement was released. The phrase that made Zheng Liwen feel 'great goodwill' transformed into: 'Different social systems are not an excuse for division.'

This statement is quite clear: although Taiwan's system differs from ours (the CCP), unification is an inevitable future. If you are unwilling to pursue 'peaceful unification,' then we will resort to 'forceful unification.' Even if 'peaceful unification'—'one country, two systems' is achieved in the future, it will ultimately have to align with our system. The consequence of resistance will be the fate of Hong Kong! In any case, 'division'—whether territorial or systemic- is absolutely intolerable!

Unfortunately, Zheng Liwen perceives this as a significant breakthrough and has brought it back to Taiwan, taking the CCP's threatening big stick and joyfully treating it like a large corn cob to take home and enjoy.

From the 'Five Point Common Vision' that Lian Zhan brought back in 2005, we have now devolved to Zheng Liwen's statement in 2026: 'You should look at the Xinhua News Agency's press release.' Over the past two decades, the Kuomintang's bargaining power in cross-strait relations has undergone an epic collapse.

The crucial question is whether this so-called 'peace effort' brings blessings or disasters to Taiwan?

A bowl of deadly Fujian clam soup

At a closed-door luncheon, there was a detail that Zheng Liwen took as irrefutable evidence of Xi Jinping's 'warmth and thoughtfulness.'

However, anyone with a grasp of history would view this as a bowl of soup filled with dark humour, and even with lethal intent.

Zheng Liwen recounted that Xi Jinping specifically introduced the first dish at the luncheon as a Fujian chicken soup—clam soup (or sea cucumber soup). Xi Jinping nostalgically noted that this dish was the same one served at the state banquet for U.S. President Nixon back in the day.

Upon hearing this, Zheng Liwen was so moved that she nearly shed tears. She eagerly shared how high-profile the General Secretary's reception of her was, even likening herself to Nixon.

Now, let’s delve into the true interpretation of this historical moment!

There are many Taiwanese immigrants in the United States, a considerable number of whom are intellectual and social elites who moved there in the mid-1970s. Why did they leave? Because they were afraid. Afraid of what? Afraid of losing the protection of the United States and the threat of an attack from the CCP.

Nixon's visit to China in 1972 represented a significant reshaping of the Cold War dynamics and a breakthrough in Sino-American relations; however, for Taiwan and the Republic of China, it was nearly a 'national extinction-level' diplomatic disaster.

Wasn't it after Nixon enjoyed that bowl of Fujian clam soup that the U.S. and China issued the 'Shanghai Communiqué'?

Shortly thereafter, the United States recognised 'one China', severed diplomatic relations with the Republic of China, abrogated treaties, and withdrew its troops from Taiwan; Taiwan was expelled from the United Nations, entering the darkest period of diplomatic isolation in its history.

Today, Xi Jinping hosted the chairman of the Kuomintang with the same dish, which can be interpreted as a 'drunken man's intention is not in the wine': the last time we served this dish to the Americans, they forcefully pushed you Taiwan over to us; this time, I serve you the same dish—you should take a moment to reflect: although you are not Nixon, you should have the chance to do even better than he did!

I wonder if Zheng Liwen understands the political codes and lethal implications hidden within this dish.

Zheng Liwen also conveyed another statement from Xi Jinping. Xi reminisced about the 'Ma-Xi meeting' in Singapore in 2015, sighed, and remarked: 'We once had a great opportunity, but unfortunately, we did not seize it well and firmly at that time.'

The meaning is quite clear—during Ma Ying-jeou's administration, the situation was favourable, but you failed to capitalise on it, which allowed Tsai Ing-wen and Lai Ching-te to rise to power. If you had shown a bit more political courage back then and pushed for greater cross-strait integration, with our full support and control, the situation across the Taiwan Strait would not be what it is today!

The conspiracy on the timeline—Trump is merely a spectator.

Furthermore, the "Zheng-Xi Meeting" serves as a precise strike against the United States, a diplomatic performance directed at the golden-haired elder across the ocean (Trump).

On April 7, Zheng Liwen arrived in Shanghai, where she was personally welcomed at the airport by Song Tao, the Director of the Central Taiwan Affairs Office. During the welcome dinner that evening, both used the phrase "Dinghai Shenzhen" to describe the "1992 Consensus," indicating that their messages aligned perfectly.

On the same day in Taipei, U.S. Congressman Noren led a national security task force from the Republican Research Committee to Taiwan, where they met with Lai Ching-te at the Presidential Office. Lai assured him directly: Taiwan has proposed an eight-year special defence budget of up to $4 billion to establish a defence industry partnership with the United States.

On April 8, Zheng Liwen visited the Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum in Nanjing, where she repeatedly criticised Japan in her speech.

On the same day in Taipei, U.S. Senator Banks sat across from Lai Ching-te and made a direct statement—"Your Legislative Yuan must fulfil its responsibilities and pass the special budget. This sends a clear signal to the Chinese Communist Party and the world, showing that Taiwan is serious about promoting peace through strength."

When did Americans become this urgent? The answer is straightforward—the intelligence community in Washington has detected imminent danger signals.

Then came the most surprising twist.

On April 9 (Wednesday), Zheng Liwen visited the Yangshan Deep Water Port in Shanghai; on the same day, a cross-party negotiation on the special military procurement bill was originally scheduled in the Taipei Legislative Yuan.

So what was the outcome?

The Kuomintang (KMT) legislators have collectively 'disappeared.' In a large conference room, only six legislators from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and one from the People’s Party attended, leading to the negotiations collapsing due to a lack of quorum.

KMT members Zhao Wei and Ma Wenjun even went so far as to schedule a trip next week to 'inspect the eastern region'—a clear indication of their intention to continue delaying proceedings.

On April 10, the 'Zheng-Xi Meeting' was held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

Zheng Liwen stated in front of cameras from around the world, 'The Taiwan Strait should not become a chessboard for external forces to intervene.'

Now, as we piece together the events of the past few days, a complete 'conspiracy picture' comes into focus.

In May, it is widely known that the 'Trump-Xi Meeting' is imminent.

Since Trump took office, he has waged a trade war and a technology war, tightening the pressure on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which has left Xi Jinping with fewer options; additionally, the subsequent special military actions in Venezuela, Iran, and elsewhere have severed the energy and geopolitical channels that Xi once relied on. He is in urgent need of a 'good card' that can silence the United States before his meeting with Trump.

At this critical juncture, Zheng Liwen's visit is essentially the 'best gift' that the KMT and the CCP's united front system could offer to Xi Jinping.

Consider this scenario: when Xi Jinping sits down at the negotiating table next month, facing the assertive Trump, he can confidently present this argument: 'Mr. Trump, the chairperson of Taiwan's largest opposition party, who may soon lead the ruling party, just flew to Beijing to shake my hand. She stated clearly that the Taiwan Strait does not require external intervention.' The 'external force' she refers to is, of course, the United States. 'Furthermore, the military budget that your congressional members personally urged in Taipei has already been blocked by the Kuomintang in the Legislative Yuan. The people of Taiwan do not wish to purchase your weapons, nor do they want to engage in conflict with us, so why are you Americans so concerned about this?' 

While American senators are calling for military purchases in Taipei, the Kuomintang chairman is in Nanjing, angrily asserting, 'If there is a problem in Taiwan, it is a problem for Japan,' referring to Japan, Taiwan's largest ally in the region. 

American lawmakers stress that military purchases are a message to the Chinese Communist Party, yet the very next day, Kuomintang legislators allow the military purchase proposal to stall in the Legislative Yuan. 

Even fishermen and fruit farmers can clearly see who is truly opening the 'Trojan Horse' from within and who is acting as an insider. 

This represents an unconditional surrender of language, an illusory 'rise of a great power.' 

Everyone should examine Zheng Liwen's speech; notice how many times she invokes the phrases 'great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation' and 'community of shared destiny'—these are all core political slogans crafted since Xi Jinping took office. 

Even more absurdly, while addressing Taiwanese businessmen in Shanghai, she called on them to 'precisely align with the new quality productivity of the 15th Five-Year Plan.'

The term 'new quality productivity' is often dismissed as a joke by many officials within the Chinese Communist Party, as it is a made-up phrase used to disguise economic downturns, mislead the public, and obscure real issues. Yet, a Taiwanese politician has been discussing it at length in Shanghai.

What is even more disconcerting is her heartfelt declaration in front of the global media: 'Under General Secretary Xi's leadership, the mainland has not only achieved comprehensive poverty alleviation but has also established a moderately prosperous society, achieving remarkable results, and continues to soar.'

The question is—where exactly is this 'continuously soaring' China she refers to?

Is it the affluent and poverty-free China that the mainland spouses expelled from Taiwan are proclaiming?
Is it China, filled with unfinished buildings, where citizens lose their investments after spending millions on homes?
Is it the China represented by Suzhou and Shanghai, where many Taiwanese businesses are now withdrawing?
Is it China where even developed provinces like Guangdong and Zhejiang cannot pay civil servant salaries and are cutting wages and jobs across the board?
Or is it China where the youth unemployment rate is so high that the government is afraid to release the actual figures, forcing countless young people to 'lie flat' or even 'drop out'?

Now, even the 'fifty-cent army' within the system recognises that life is difficult and dares not speak out loudly. Many accounts on social media that attack so-called 'anti-communist rhetoric' are suspected of being operated by AI.

Consequently, a chairman of a Taiwanese opposition party, hailing from an economically thriving region with a stock market that frequently reaches new heights, has travelled to Beijing to extol the so-called 'comprehensive poverty alleviation and economic miracle.'

Is this an act of feigned ignorance, or is she genuinely blind to reality?

This situation goes beyond mere united front tactics; it is akin to a late-stage manifestation of 'Stockholm syndrome.'

Ironically, in her speech, she made no mention of the 'Republic of China' and did not refer to 'democracy, freedom, or human rights' at all.

These terms, which are considered vital by the people of Taiwan, seemed to have become a hot potato in her remarks, completely omitted.

Even the 'One China, Different Interpretations' framework, which the Kuomintang has clung to as a last resort for decades, was not mentioned.

Instead, she repeatedly echoed the Chinese Communist Party's exact phrasing: '1992 Consensus, Oppose Taiwan Independence.'

Is this really about negotiation, or is it merely about reaping rewards?

This situation evokes memories of the late 1940s during the Chinese Civil War.

At that time, senior Kuomintang general Zhang Zhizhong travelled to Beiping for peace negotiations with the CCP, coincidentally in April. Mao Zedong hosted him in Beiping with great hospitality, engaging in light-hearted conversation. While it appeared to be a display of 'peaceful sincerity,' the reality was that the People's Liberation Army had already completed its deployment on the north bank of the Yangtze River, just waiting for the command to cross with a million troops.

The pace of history is often far more brutal than the negotiations on the surface.

Zheng Liwen also expressed her confidence at the press conference, stating that after her visit to China, she plans to visit the United States in June this year. She seems to believe she has successfully balanced both sides—being able to engage in discussions in Beijing while also being welcomed in Washington.

But does she truly grasp the current realities of American politics?

Today in the United States, whether among Republicans or Democrats, the attitude towards the CCP is nearly unanimous: maintain distance and enhance vigilance. Those who adopt a hardline stance against the CCP gain political advantages; those who advocate for closer ties with the CCP face political risks.

In this context, if one still believes they can navigate between Beijing and Washington, that represents a serious misjudgment of reality.

(Excerpted from Jiang Feng's Moment)
△