A person should always be wary of a politician's words and more so of their promises. One hundred years of peace can only be offered either in the knowledge of assurances from China not to threaten Taiwan or based on sheer hope. Either way, it resonates unfortunately with the late British prime minister Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time."
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said he would not negotiate on unification during his term in office, but that does not mean policies that would serve as foundations for such an eventuality cannot be passed.
A Ma presidency, combined with a KMT led legislature, could and most likely will, pass a significant amount of legislation that creates the institutional relationships and infrastructure necessary for, at first, full economic integration. Just as President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) abolished the National Unification Guidelines, so too a KMT Cabinet could set a timetable for negotiations to begin, thereby ensuring a momentum that succeeding governments would find hard to reverse.
Ma's approach to the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty is inconsistent. In February 2006 he said that if elected, "the main goal will be to shape domestic conditions for unification and plant the unification idea deep in every sector of society in order to move from an anti-independence strategy toward a pro-unification push." Later in the same trip, he said that reunification could not proceed without the consent of the Taiwanese people.
In March 2006, Ma ran adverts saying independence was an option, yet he now takes another position of ruling out independence and unification. Speeches like this have resulted in many otherwise intelligent people believing Ma to be anti-unification, proof that spinning his message to create a broad tent appeal has thus far been a successful strategy.
This is not a phenomenon restricted to Taiwanese politics. Many people in the UK thought that they were voting for a social democrat in former British prime minister Tony Blair only to be confronted with a pious neo-liberal social authoritarian.
If the KMT now boycotts its referendum on rejoining the UN under a practical title, then Taiwanese will know clearly that Ma and the KMT have no stomach to fight for the Republic of China or Taiwan, instead choosing to inseminate in the Taiwanese a "China or bust" psychosis while offering the false hope of economic "recovery" through all but official unification with China.
So far, the pan-blues -- in charge of most local governments and with a majority in the legislature for more than four years -- have delivered discontent, disillusionment and benefited from voter apathy, with only 57 percent of voters showing up during the Jan. 12 legislative elections.
The KMT is aware that with its dominant hold on the legislature, it can no longer avoid responsibility for the economy and quality of life -- the basis of its criticism of Chen.
A possible US recession may suddenly deliver the KMT into a real crisis, not the one it has manufactured for the elections.
One can only hope that if the KMT fails to deliver, Taiwanese will be as unforgiving as they were in the recent legislative elections.
Ben Goren
Tainan
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS