Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Last Wednesday, Ma gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. Here are some highlights:
Ma said that right after President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) first won election to the presidency in 2000, his approval rating was high (80 percent) because he paid his respects to the KMT's bigwigs, appointed General Tang Fei (唐飛)as head of the Executive Yuan and made the "five noes" pledge in his inauguration address.
Later, Chen advocated "one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait," and provoked and angered China, causing his popularity to plunge and resulting in successive defeats in the polls for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Ma said.
Ma said Taiwan's future prosperity depends on closer economic integration with China. Otherwise, it will be excluded from the ASEAN plus two or plus three free-trade agreement and its economy will be marginalized. If the KMT were to win the 2008 presidential election, Ma plans to carry out five policy goals: resume negotiations with Beijing under the so-called "1992 consensus," sign a peace accord with China, work to establish a common market across the Taiwan Strait, increase Taiwan's international participation and boost cultural and educational exchanges. Ma ended his speech by labeling Chen a troublemaker and himself a peacemaker.
Ma didn't spell out the quid pro quo which will prompt China to renounce its use of force against Taiwan, but it has to be acceptance of the "one China" principle. The peace accord idea is not new. US academics and former officials have advanced the same idea under the name of an "interim agreement." The key ingredient is that Taiwan permanently forgoes any possibility of independence.
Of course, once Taiwan surrenders its sovereignty there is no need for China to resort to force, so Ma's peace accord is a poor bargain for the Taiwanese, who will forfeit their hard-won freedom for an empty promise of autonomy. Hong Kong was promised 50 years of democracy, but Beijing quickly reneged on that commitment.
Ma's command of English and his oratorical skill were less than impressive. It was obvious, however, that he had expended much effort in anticipating questions and preparing answers, even though many of his responses were facetious.
During the question and answer session that followed Ma's speech, this writer managed to ask the following question: "You have said Taiwan should focus on maintaining the status quo. This is disingenuous because the KMT's actions are changing the status quo in favor of China. For example, the pan-blues have blocked the arms procurement bill in the legislature's Procedure Committee, weakening Taiwan's security even though China continues to develop its military capacity. Second, Taiwan's economy is being hollowed out due to the mass exodus of capital, technology and manpower to China. Yet the KMT advocates greater economic integration with China and early implementation of direct links. Lastly, to maintain the status quo, what is needed is unity, yet the pan-blues are actively undermining the Chen administration's ability to govern effectively, for example, by persisting in the `March 19 truth investigation' of the assassination attempt on the president and vice president and introducing a peace promotion bill, designed to usurp the executive power of the DPP government and create an environment conducive to Taiwan's annexation by China."
Actually, the exact wording of my question was more brief, due to time constraints.
Finally, I asked Ma: "As KMT chairman, do you believe you owe your allegiance to Taiwan, or to China, or perhaps to both?"
Regarding the failure to advance the arms bill, Ma said the main fault lies with the DPP, which did not introduce a bill until June 2004, more than three years after the US offered the arms package in the spring of 2001.
Ma didn't comment on the growing dependence of Taiwan's economy on China and the attendant dangers to Taiwan's security and prosperity. On the pan-blues' incessant harassment of the government, Ma merely said it was the opposition party's duty to oppose the government. Obviously, Ma does not understand the difference between the loyal opposition of a normal democracy and the subversive, disloyal behavior of the pan-blue legislators.
On the question of allegiance, Ma said he pledged allegiance to the Republic of China, which was established in 1912.
Ma didn't say much new at the American Enterprise Institute. What he failed to mention was more significant. He didn't criticize China's military threat or diplomatic pressure against Taiwan. There was no denunciation of China's autocratic rule, nor any praise of Taiwan's democratic achievements. He didn't propose any plan to bolster Taiwan's national defense or to strengthen economic security.
Ma's definition of the status quo is troublesome. It means no immediate unification, no permanent separation of Taiwan from China and no de jure independence. Ma appears to regard the status quo as an extension of China' civil war, which ended in 1949. To Ma, the status quo is a temporary transition to ultimate unification. He mentioned a transition period of 30 to 50 years. This is a facetious ruse. Once a peace accord is implemented, the morale of Taiwan's armed forces and citizenry will collapse. The US' Taiwan Relations Act will be abrogated and China can renege on its promise of autonomy.
Ma has made contradictory statements on Taiwan's future. He has said the KMT's aim is ultimate unification, but a KMT ad in the Liberty Times stated that de jure independence was also an option.
He said on one occasion that the fate of Taiwan should be decided by the 23 million people of Taiwan, and on another occasion that both the 1.3 billion Chinese and the Taiwanese should decide. Such vacillations reflect his need to win the votes of the majority of the Taiwanese who reject unification, while retaining the support of his pro-unification minority base and Beijing's goodwill. Yet it is clear from his words and deeds that his heart is with China. He is firmly committed to Taiwan's eventual annexation by China.
Ma poses a grave danger to Taiwan's survival as an independent democracy because many people in Taiwan and in the US policy establishment could misjudge his true intentions.
Huan Jei-hsuan of California has pointed out other dangers should Ma win the presidency in 2008 (Letter, Jan. 22, page 8). If a peace accord is signed and formal Taiwanese independence is outlawed, a popular uprising could occur. This is plausible since the armed forces consist preponderantly of native Taiwanese, who do not regard themselves as Chinese.
If internal strife develops, this will give the People's Liberation Army (PLA) a good excuse to invade Taiwan. Instead of peace, Ma's election will thus trigger a war that nobody wants.
On the other hand, if Ma is tardy in delivering Taiwan, the PLA could also launch an attack. The US is tied down in Iraq and will not be able to extricate itself until after 2008. Chinese nationalism will reach to a heady peak right after Beijing hosts the 2008 Olympics. The US State Department's recent policy of tilting toward Beijing may also lead the PLA to calculate that the US will not intervene.
Huang's theory that a Ma victory will precipitate war is debatable. But the life and liberty of all Taiwanese is a serious matter. Voters should elect a leader they can fully trust to preserve Taiwan's sovereignty and democracy in accordance with the will of the majority. The election of Ma as president could well sound the death knell for Taiwan's freedom. Prudence calls for a president whose pledge of allegiance to Taiwan and commitment to freedom are beyond any doubt.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
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