Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
That was, of course, Ma's attempt on the eve of the second debate to show that he really cared about Taiwan after all. It's interesting that he felt he had to do this. After all, his disproportionately mainlander Taipei constituency doesn't care about Taiwan -- except as a foxhole -- and never has. Could Ma's new-found concern for Taiwan's dignity -- which he has done as much as anyone to trash in the last two years since the KMT fell in love with the goal of Greater China regional hegemony under PRC leadership -- reveal something of his wider ambitions? Being Beijing's stooge might be safe in Taipei but plays very poorly indeed in southern Taiwan, which Ma will need if he wants to oust President Chen Shui-bian (
And so we come to the debate yesterday which was very much of an anticlimax. After the murder of Taipei City Councilor Chen Chin-chi (
One of the best parts of DPP candidate Lee Ying-yuan's (
In all fairness though, what the Chen murder really makes one think about is not a lack of safety on the capital's streets, but the murky world of the City Council and many of those who sit on it -- with their close relationship to organized crime.
Beyond this the debate was rather dull, going on at length about trash bags and commute time to CKS airport. Probably the most interesting question was on renaming Taipei's streets, with their nauseating litany of China-derived names, redolent as they are of KMT colonialism. This was something that should have tripped up Ma, but Lee gave him an easy ride -- as he generally did, in fact, all through the debates.
Another issue which could have been fruitfully pursued was why Ma supports the fetishism of mainland culture by his Bureau of Cultural Affairs, or what his problem might be with flying the flag. But the lasting impression of the debates has to be puzzlement about why it is that the DPP can swing away but never seems to be able to land a punch, even on an opponent as vulnerable as Ma. When will they learn?
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath