With only a little more than three weeks left to find a running mate before the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) announces its presidential-vice-presidential ticket, former Taipei mayor and KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
In his speech, Ma depicted the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government's foreign policies in the past four years as "amateurish, capricious, dogmatic and based on brinksmanship." To be fair, if Ma's point was that the DPP's foreign policies were less than successful, it is hard to seriously refute him.
However, highlighting the DPP's weakness will not, by itself, be enough to win him votes. Ma needs to convince the public-at-large that he and the KMT can do a better job than President Chen Shui-bian (
As many people will acknowledge, the biggest roadblock to the country's international participation has been the sovereignty of Taiwan. Ma referred to the DPP government's decision to seek WHO participation under the name "Taiwan" as being too dogmatic. The underlying message seems to be that dispute over the country's name is nothing but a dispute over formality, which should be secondary to substantive participation in international bodies.
However, many would disagree with Ma that the dispute is merely over form rather than substance.
Instead, the fundamental disagreement between two sides of the Taiwan Strait is the status of Taiwan.
Without this fundamental disagreement, there would be no disputes over the name. To the DPP and its supporters, we are what we call ourselves. If we call ourselves and allow others to call us names such as "Chinese Taipei" in international bodies, then we are essentially conceding Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. To the KMT and its supporters, so long as we get to participate, the name under which we participate is of little importance.
However, it becomes more difficult for the KMT to sell this view once Taiwanese realize that pressure from Beijing is the reason why the KMT has adopted this position.
Even if Taiwan agrees to compromise on the name used in return for international participation, there is reason to doubt that China would approve Taiwan's participation at the international level. After all, it has been Beijing's longstanding policy to deny Taipei participation in international organizations, including non-political bodies.
This has much to do with the fact that as the Chinese government gains an increasing say in international bodies, its ability to obstruct Taiwan's ability to participate rises commensurately.
Under the circumstances, if Ma's idea of pragmatic diplomacy involves giving up more on the name issue, then despite all the talk, his view of foreign affairs would be a shallow one. For its part, his four-point proposal appears to be built on the "pragmatic diplomacy" of the KMT in the 1990s. However, cross-strait relations are an ever-evolving process. Neither China nor Taiwan is what it was 10 years ago.
It would therefore be naive to believe that a return to policies that may have worked 10 years ago is the way to run the nation's foreign affairs today.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US