In his inaugural address last Tuesday, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) sought to sweep away eight years of gloom and to set a cautious, yet optimistic, foundation for three-way relations between Taiwan, China and the US. But while Ma has bid farewell to the past, new and difficult problems have emerged.
Through a multi-layered strategic approach in his inaugural speech, Ma used security and trade relations between Taiwan and the US as backup and the potential for another power transfer as bargaining chips in an attempt to seek cross-strait negotiations with Beijing on highly sensitive issues such as the threat of Taiwan’s marginalization in the economic integration of Southeast Asia and its shrinking international space. At the same time, Ma utilized the improvement in cross-strait relations as a leverage for engaging in talks with Washington on intellectual property rights enforcement, import of US agricultural products and weapon sales to Taiwan.
Although Ma once again mentioned direct cross-strait weekend charter flights and allowing more Chinese tourists to visit Taiwan, he said this would hinge on whether Taiwan and China could move into a new era. He also appealed to Beijing to consider the fact that both nations are largely composed of ethnic Chinese — a tactic that is both forceful and compliant.
With full knowledge that Beijing would not respond in the short term, Ma still offered reconciliation as the objective of his cross-strait effort, saying that Taiwan would become a harbinger of peace, thereby implying that former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) government was a harbinger of trouble — again combining force and compliancy.
The problem is, we cannot control how Beijing and the US will respond. Will Beijing maintain a passive position during long-term cross-strait negotiations? Can the Chinese authorities only give without asking for anything in return?
Ma has said that Taiwan’s relationship with the US as a trade partner and a security ally must be strengthened, that an adequate defense budget is needed and defensive weapons must be purchased. He has also said that a resumption of dialogue with Beijing should be built on the so-called “1992 consensus.” No doubt all these statements set Washington’s mind at ease.
However, it was the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) that opposed numerous weapon purchase bills during its term in opposition. The US has also refused to sell F-16C/D aircraft to Taiwan for political considerations, did not support the development of the Hsiung Feng IIE anti-ship missile and was in two minds over the sale of submarines.
The situation has changed. Will Ma and the administration of US President George W. Bush consider new measures once trust between Taiwan and the US has been restored?
If Taiwan, faced with China’s superior military power, does not develop or purchase the necessary defensive weapons, how can it strengthen its national defense and negotiate with Beijing from a position of confidence? The US and Taiwan still have different view of what constitutes essential defensive weapons, and these differences must be resolved.
In his inaugural speech, Ma said nothing about signing a free trade agreement (FTA) with the US. Coincidentally, US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte did not mention it either when testifying before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations earlier this month, showing that the two parties have not reached a consensus on this issue.
The problem is if the Bush administration is unwilling to set an example by negotiating an FTA with the Ma administration, how can Taipei expect Beijing to allow the ASEAN to negotiate such a deal with Taiwan?
As for Taiwan’s highly sensitive bid to gain observer status in the World Health Assembly (WHA) — the WHO’s top decision-making body — Negroponte did show his support. Still, without Beijing’s approval, Washington’s support is nothing but empty words. During the Democratic Progressive Party government’s rule, Beijing’s obstruction of Taipei’s bid created a lot of public discontent. If Ma fails to bring Taiwan into the WHA within the next few years, he will have a problem explaining his failure to Taiwanese voters.
Cold War thinking is causing Washington to worry that cross-strait unification may be unfavorable to US national and strategic interests. Post-Cold War thinking also implies that annexation is unlikely owing to tensions and confrontation between these two major powers. However, Taiwan’s economic and trade integration with China and the Southeast Asian region is inevitable. How will Taiwan, China and the US deal with this trend? This deserves more attention in future.
Edward Chen is a professor in the Graduate Institute of American Studies at Tamkang University.
TRANSLATED BY ANGELA HONG AND EDDY CHANG
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