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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers