During his tour of the US, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Ma made some correct statements. He voiced his indignation at Beijing, saying that if China continued to oppress Taiwan, it would not only be independence activists who opposed Beijing, but that he would do so too.
He insisted that the "Republic of China" (ROC) is an independent and sovereign state, and that a resolution of cross-strait differences should be sought through dialogue. He sees Taiwan-US relations as even more important than cross-strait relations, and opposes the UN's drive to promote the use of simplified Chinese characters. Ma's arguments, along with his oratorical skills, may make him a much worthier leader of the opposition.
The problem is that Ma's vision of the development of cross-strait relations is distorted by wishful thinking. For example, he still markets the "1992 consensus," which never existed, for China has never departed from its position that there is only one China in the world, that Taiwan is part of China and that the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) is the only legitimate government of China. Ma must surely be aware that Beijing's idea of a consensus is that Taiwan accepts China's position on the issue, no matter what.
In addition, the PRC has consistently rejected the concepts of "one China, one Taiwan" and "two Chinas." Beijing has also opposed participation in international events organized by the UN by official Taiwanese representatives using a title that may imply national sovereignty. It is unlikely, therefore, that China is going to accept Ma's standpoint of "one China, with each side having its own interpretation."
Ma has also said that China will have to accept one of two titles for Taiwan: either the Republic of China or the Republic of Taiwan. That's fine as a joke, but he can't really mean it, for both titles have been rejected by the PRC since 1971, when the UN recognized the PRC. In the absence of an alternative, would Ma himself be willing to accept the title "Republic of Taiwan"? Considering his recent comments made during a trip to the UK that the KMT continues to frown on Taiwanese independence, the answer is clearly no.
Beijing is not going to make any compromises unless Ma has the guts to announce the KMT would consider Taiwanese independence, effectively using a policy he doesn't agree with as a bargaining chip.
When Ma talks of "one China," he is referring to the ROC, whose territory includes the PRC, Inner Mongolia and Taiwan. This not only goes against international consensus, but also betrays a stubbornness of which dictator Chiang Kai-shek (
It would seem that the new generation of KMT leaders do not have anything new to say, still fantasizing that their David can fell China's Goliath, unaware that they are in constant danger of being flattened.
Ma's trip to the US should have taught him that he still has much to learn about international politics.
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