US academic John Copper's recent commentary ("China's choice for Taiwan's next leader," June 14, page 8) argues that Beijing prefers Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) over Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for president.
This is an example of how pro-Beijing talking points are taken up into the academic discourse on Taiwan and then returned as "analysis."
Copper states that DPP foreign policy has failed, and that Beijing would prefer Hsieh, who belongs to this party. Apparently, collective amnesia has fallen over the academic world.
As the blog Foreigner from Formosa pointed out the other day, the KMT's record was one of total diplomatic failure -- the KMT lost more allies than the DPP, lost them at a far greater rate and lost the recognition of every single major power.
I should add that the KMT also voluntarily withdrew from the UN, and coined that odious term "Chinese Taipei." By contrast, the DPP has not lost any major countries, and the rate of loss has slowed.
Copper also fails to observe that under the DPP a widespread perception has grown that Taiwan is a nation in itself that is different from China. There are now Taiwan studies departments at major universities overseas. This is one positive accomplishment of DPP foreign policy that gets little play in the media or in academic discourse.
Further, the DPP has worked with pro-Taiwan, pro-democracy groups overseas, groups that the KMT attempted to suppress. Copper criticizes DPP relations with the US, forgetting that the KMT blew up its relations with the US in an astonishingly stupid assassination and weapons theft scheme in the US in the 1980s. Clearly, if the preference is for foreign policy klutziness, the KMT wins hands down.
Copper goes on to say that Ma has publicly criticized China's human rights record and is aware that there is little support in Taiwan for China annexing it.
It is absolutely crucial to understand that Ma's base of support is the "deep blues." As the Australian-based Taiwan expert Bruce Jacobs noted in this paper a few months ago, whenever Ma is in trouble, he moves closer to this base.
So, either Ma has comprehensively fooled his own supporters, or Copper has misread him. Moreover, Copper misses the key point that Ma's criticisms of Beijing and support for democracy are for foreign consumption only.
At home Ma has expressed the hope that the KMT Youth Corps will produce another [Chinese President] Hu Jintao (
More importantly, when faced with the same choices that Hsieh faced, Ma chose to serve the authoritarian regime that Hsieh opposed, first allegedly as a student spy, and then later as secretary to dictator Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國). Ma's support for democracy is entirely a construction to snow foreigners.
Finally, Copper's position that Hsieh is preferable to Ma depends on the assumption that Ma can stand up to Beijing. But the one thing that Ma has never shown in his long career as servant and scion of the KMT party-state is a political and moral spine. Ma's famous "pragmatism" is largely indecision and an instinct to avoid strong answers to hard questions.
No, when faced with pressure from Beijing, Ma will cave. Much sooner than Hsieh, who is both tougher and smarter than Ma.
Despite Copper's misreading of Ma, it is important to note that there are grounds for Beijing to prefer Hsieh.
With the pan-blue camp likely to continue to control the legislature and the DPP the presidency, governance will continue to be paralyzed. Beijing prefers that, since good governance tends to strengthen Taiwanese independence, as well as rebut one of Beijing's most important propaganda themes: Annexing Taiwan would be an act of discipline for an obstreperous and immature child.
Copper's failure to identify this real and fundamental problem of Taiwan's governance, caused largely by the intransigence of the pro-China parties, is simply one more way in which his analysis is dominated by the themes supplied to international media and academic discourse by the pro-China side.
Michael Turton
Tanzi, Taichung County
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