One of the most powerful things about being multilingual is that it allows one to see a far more complex side of people -- and deromanticizes what would otherwise be rendered as exotic. American Institute in Taiwan Director Stephen Young, for example, is multilingual and so has the ability to observe Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Most people of influence in Washington are not privy to the wealth of Ma's throwaway comments and actions over the years that reflect the subordinate status of democracy in his thinking. But these people are privy to the analysis of foreign correspondents who prefer to wax lyrical, for example, on Ma's beautiful features. Wiser heads in Washington would do well to carefully note this schmooze factor in Ma's politicking, and how it plays a more important role for his presidential aspirations than coherent policy.
Much has been made of Ma's disarming language skills and congenial manner as he travels across Europe and the US, contrasting acutely with Chen's scattershot English and ventriloquist dummy's grin. And for Ma, the timing of his US trip is quite superb. Exploiting US jitters over Iraq by presenting a pragmatic "solution" to ominous problems in the Taiwan Strait could not be a more lucrative strategy.
It can only be hoped that those who expect more from Ma than a warm handshake, a dazzling smile and complete English sentences will continue to probe him on his willingness and ability to stand up to Chinese violence.
The skeptical will also have noted that with Ma, there is only a small gap between being smooth and being slippery. It has proven impossible for anyone to establish why, in Ma's opinion, Beijing would take the slightest notice of a president who fails to keep his military fully armed. This is because Ma has patronized his US audiences with a mix of carefully structured evasiveness and mistruths. There's also been a hefty slice of pie in the sky: The idea that China would consider Ma's proposal of a 30 to 50-year moratorium on unification and then honor any agreement is so naive as to be pitiful.
US officials whose knowledge of Taiwan does not extend beyond the odd meeting with visiting officials and irregular Internet surfing would not know that the KMT's innermost ideology only pays lip service to democratic ideals. This is not to deny that there has been democratization in the KMT, but any sober observer who witnessed events after the last presidential election would know that the KMT remains only a few budding demagogues away from regression to its earlier putrid self. That the DPP is flailing in its attempt to do better does not make this any less true.
Ma appears not to be a demagogue-in-waiting, and the average Taiwanese is unlikely to back such regression. But the mischief that led to former KMT chairman Lien Chan's (
Any person who walks away from a meeting with Ma starry-eyed at the sight of a "Chinese" political leader speaking passable English and promising stability, economic development and a democratic China is abjectly naive -- and Ma would surely agree, given that he has already stated that Americans are gullible. The irony is that it is to these same Americans whom Ma is pitching his wares. Sadly, there is every likelihood that he will find many an eager customer itching for traction in the dying years of the Bush administration.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS