To further his ballot-box appeal and please Beijing, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) walks a fine line. He seems to be incapable of supporting any solid position regarding cross-strait affairs, especially in the context of Taiwan's national security.
For instance, Ma's fence-straddling habit quickly sparked a spirited argument with the host when interviewed recently on the BBC's Hardtalk program, where he stated that he was against China's "Anti-Secession" Law on the grounds that the threat of force had been there for years and it was unnecessary and unwise for Beijing to codify it.
In other words, he was acknowledging the existence of Beijing's threat but had not yet staked a position either for or against it. One comes away with the impression that he was exercising some astonishing logic: as long as the threat has been there for a while, it's immune to righteous scrutiny -- or, it's Beijing's "squatters rights".
He might also be applying this same reasoning to his handling of the KMT's ill-gotten assets. Given that they were looted from the public or coerced from private citizens decades ago, he reasons, they should all be considered "rightfully owned" by the KMT.
Ma and the KMT's difficulties with commonly accepted logic start with the fantastical interpretation of the current status of Taiwan: namely, Taiwan is part of a Republic of China that encompasses the present-day People's Republic of China and the Republic of Mongolia, reality notwithstanding.
The KMT has had 50 years of opportunity to cultivate within Taiwan that line of thinking -- including the KMT's squatters rights to Taiwan. Ma was the first KMT leader foolhardy enough to try to defend the KMT position abroad and quickly discovered that his non-stick Teflon image failed to impress.
Even within Taiwan, the KMT's brand of logic is increasingly untenable.
Recently Ma placed an ad in the Liberty Times stating that Taiwan's formal independence is an option which Taiwan's people can eventually choose. He later added that the KMT is totally against that option.
One can then surmise that Ma was merely acknowledging the existence of the formal independence option and that the KMT is going to work to prevent the Taiwanese people from ever taking that option. In other words, the ad was only meant to be informative. Perhaps even more accurately, Ma would like to make the Taiwanese people "appreciate" that he himself is finally aware of the option.
However, if Ma were sincere about the option in accordance with the principle of freedom of choice, he would be very much in favor of a referendum on sovereignty in Taiwan before any formal inter-governmental talks between Taiwan and China commence. That's because Beijing's condition for any talks is that Taiwan accede to Beijing's "one China" framework.
Ma has not yet shown any inclination for a referendum on any subject. The same whimsical approach was applied to his attempt at dealing with the subject of the 228 Incident. Ma has so far offered a verbal apology to some of the descendents of the victims and promised to do the same thing over and over again in the future. He and the KMT seem to believe that should be the extent of it.
Ma would not even acknowledge that the slaughter and imprisonment of practically all Taiwanese political leaders of the 228 era was a systematic and heinous design by an external, authoritarian, KMT regime to silence and cow a newly-looted land. Therefore, he ignored the fact that the apology and atonement should be directed at not only the descendents of the victims but also the Taiwanese public for depriving them of the benefit of decades of Taiwanese leadership.
The clearest and fullest way of achieving redemption would be to do things Ma and the KMT will not do, namely changing the party name to the Taiwanese Nationalist Party, renouncing its unification goal, relinquishing ownership of all ill-gotten party assets and releasing all items related to the 228 Incident. Unfortunately, in place of atonement, Ma is striving to bring to the Taiwanese people the possibility of a repeat -- with the magnitude multiplied untold times -- of the 228 Incident.
Ma might eventually do more than just add insult to the injury of the Taiwanese people.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with