If anyone ever had lingering doubts about Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) abilities as a Harvard-trained lawyer, they were almost certainly put to rest during his recent interview with the BBC's Hardtalk television program.
Ma's legalistic ability to disarm his opponents through obfuscation and equivocation, as well as his obdurate refusal to commit to answering difficult questions were on full display. Despite host Stephen Sackur's tried-and-tested ability to rhetorically manhandle namby-pamby politicos like the Taipei mayor, Ma made a Herculean effort and avoided giving straight answers to simple questions.
Almost the only question to which Ma could give a direct answer was the very first of the interview:
"Does China pose a threat to Taiwan?" Sackur asked.
"Yes," was the only reply Ma could muster, as though he'd been taken off guard by the novelty of the idea. After that, he quickly regained his footing.
"How grave a threat?" was Sackur's response.
"Uh ... depends on the type of ... uh ... situation you are talking about," Ma blathered, launching into a verbose exchange about China's missiles and military maneuvers.
Naturally, this led into tougher questions about why the KMT was blocking the arms procurement deal with the US. Ma regurgitated the well-worn lines about supporting "reasonable" arms purchases. What he did not do, and what the KMT has never been able to do, is explain how, exactly, it intends to ensure that Taiwan is able to defend itself.
What weapons systems should Taiwan invest in? What military programs should be focused on? What is the most effective way to ensure that Taiwan's people have the ability to determine their own future in the face of China's threat?
If you're hoping for answers to these questions, don't look to Ma.
Still, the spectacle of Ma squirming under Sackur's grilling provided some comic relief. Watching Ma attempt to justify former KMT chairman Lien Chan's (
Indeed, if there is a ghost that has been doggedly haunting Ma ever since he took the reins of the KMT, it is the ghost of Lien and the party's ossified Cold-War era policies. The only defense Ma could muster, after some impressive oratorical contortions, was some drivel about the need for direct cross-strait flights.
Things got so uncomfortable for Ma that he eventually broke into an outburst that bordered on racial chauvinism to prevent Sackur from embarrassing him. The trouble came after Sackur tried to nail down Ma's position on unification.
"You don't actually believe in an independent, sovereign Taiwan in the future, do you? You actually believe in one China and unification," Sackur said.
"No, no, no. You don't understand what these terms mean. You're not very much familiar with Chinese affairs and Taiwanese affairs," Ma told the host, as if Sackur -- a veteran journalist with a team of researchers supporting him -- had not just spent the past 20 minutes asking him detailed, probing questions about almost every important issue in Taiwan's affairs.
Needless to say, Ma dodged the question, and blithely ignored Sackur when he pointed out the contradictory comments Ma had made about the topic.
Nevertheless, Ma did offer one very instructive insight during the interview:
"Only the people in power could sell out Taiwan," he said midway through the show.
This is an interesting point. And it is one that voters should bear in mind in 2008.
The post-Cold War belief that sovereignty, international law and economic interdependence would shield smaller states from great-power coercion is steadily eroding. Across the world, major powers are once again thinking in terms of strategic neighborhoods, buffer zones and spheres of influence. Geography is reasserting itself as a central determinant of security. For Taiwan, this shift is not merely an academic debate. It is an existential challenge. Situated just 180km off the coast of communist China, democratic Taiwan occupies a position that Beijing increasingly regards as lying within its natural sphere of influence. As China’s military power expands and its ambitions grow more
On June 11, China barred Philippine Secretary of National Defense Gilberto Teodoro Jr and his family from entering mainland China, Hong Kong or Macau, and forbade Chinese firms and citizens from conducting business with them. As an instrument, the measure is close to meaningless. Teodoro had already made clear he had no intention of setting foot in China. Its meaning lies elsewhere. This is the first time Beijing has sanctioned a sitting cabinet minister of a country it diplomatically recognizes, according to the American Enterprise Institute, and the target is the most outspoken critic of Chinese conduct in the Marcos
Japan and China are not at war, but their relationship is moving toward a dangerous new stage. The immediate friction is visible in missiles, sanctions and detentions. The deeper driver is Taiwan. Three developments show how central Taiwan has become. First, Japan is preparing to host expanded US missile deployments in its southwestern islands near Taiwan, including the Typhon system. That deployment is meant to strengthen deterrence in the event of a Taiwan contingency, but it also makes Japan a more direct part of the strategic contest with China. Second, Beijing has responded with pressure of its own. China has
There are concerns that China’s new “Ethnic Unity and Progress Promotion Law,” which takes effect on Wednesday next week, targets what the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sees as “separatist” groups in Taiwan. It is not: The CCP has its sights set on a wider, more ambitious target, aimed at consolidating its legitimacy at home. That does not mean Taiwanese would not be affected. The CCP is presenting the law as a means to “forge a collective national consciousness for the Chinese nation.” Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and his party’s “Chinese nation” includes Taiwanese. The law is best understood as
RSS