In an interview with Bloomberg last Thursday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
While Ma's comments are an improvement over his previously naive remark that unification is the KMT's eventual goal and his suggestion of putting aside long-term concerns to focus on the short and mid-term peaceful development of cross-strait relations, they still show a distinct lack of Taiwanese consciousness. His words are designed to put Taiwan right into China's "united front" trap and are a betrayal of public expectations.
Ma's proposed peace agreement can be likened to a man forcing a woman to marry him with the promise that he would not beat her if she agrees.
There are several major flaws in Ma's plan.
First, it is a denial of Taiwan's sovereignty. Past surveys have shown that the Taiwanese think Taiwan is independent, and that the country's official title is the Republic of China. There is a major consensus on this issue among most Taiwanese and the different political parties. But since Ma's peace agreement proposes to exchange Taiwan's independence for China's promise not to use violence, it is based on the supposition that Taiwan is not a sovereign and independent nation. If the winner of the 2008 presidential election denies that Taiwan is an independent country, how would he or she be any different from the leaders of Hong Kong and Macau?
Second, the agreement would strangle Taiwan's future. Ma said that the peace agreement would not include a provision for eventual unification, that the decision should be left to Taiwan's 23 million people and that unification could only occur after China had developed freedom, democracy and prosperity. But inking a "one China" consensus would put Taiwan on a one-way road to unification, severely limiting the country's future options -- just as the Sino-British Joint Declaration did for Hong Kong in 1984.
Third, the conditions for a cross-strait peace agreement are unequal. Peace and non-violence are the basic principles underlying the international community's solution to conflict. If Taipei were to sacrifice future possibilities in exchange for Beijing's promise not to attack the country in the short or medium term, Taiwan would be walking straight into China's trap without getting anything in return.
Fourth, a cross-strait peace agreement could become an excuse for China to take military action against Taiwan. Such an agreement would guarantee that the cross-strait status quo is maintained for a period of time. But if Taiwan refuses to accept China's demand for unification after the expiration of the agreement, Beijing could attack Taiwan by claiming that it has declared independence or that the preconditions for unification no longer exist.
Ma's peace proposal is nothing new. The idea of such an agreement was first raised during former US president Bill Clinton's administration when China expert Kenneth Lieberthal proposed an agreement for the mid term. The US' "track two" program to facilitate diplomacy between China and Taiwan led to a substantial amount of discussion, but Taiwan did not agree to the talks because of the potential problems it would cause. Even the US did not push for the signing of such an accord.
By bringing up the same old issue again, Ma has only highlighted the blind spots in the KMT's cross-strait policy, along with his own naivete.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS