Now that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been in power for a few months, one would have hoped that a clearer picture of his vision for the nation would emerge.
Sadly, this has not happened.
The one thing that is certain is that the Ma government is committed to maintaining the “status quo,” which means perpetrating the “one China” formula — with or without the 1992 fig leaf of ambiguous interpretation.
With the “status quo” mantra in place, the administration has hoped to create relative stability in cross-strait relations. This, in turn, is supposed to lead to quantitative improvements in economic relations in all sectors that have benefits for all Taiwanese.
So far, though, the anticipated hike in economic indicators, such as the stock market, has not materialized, which is causing the government considerable embarrassment.
In other words, all the fanfare over instant nirvana from stable cross-strait relations was empty hype.
Unless the Ma government has given up on Taiwan’s sovereignty, it is certainly heading in the wrong direction in conducting its relations with China.
An important principle of international diplomacy is not to show all one’s cards when conducting formal or informal relations.
But the Ma administration has acted in such unseemly haste that its emissaries and officials have appeared ecstatic to have been received in Beijing in any capacity.
The whole exercise has been undignified and one-sided, with Taiwan looking like a supplicant.
The Ma administration has therefore lost whatever leverage it once had to fashion its relations with Beijing to its advantage. It seems to think that opening and expanding economic and other ties with China will catapult Taiwan to new levels of prosperity.
But this is not happening, which means that the Ma government will grow more preoccupied with bridging the gap between rhetoric and reality.
The worst thing is that, having pinned all its expectations on Beijing, the government will likely find it hard to regain lost ground.
In the meantime, the US’ commitment to defend Taiwan is languishing. Of course, a US commitment to help Taiwan remains. But where are the new weapons to defend against China’s military machine?
The Taiwan-US relationship is caught in a complex tangle involving US hesitancy to complicate relations with China over Taiwan. Amid a background of Washington’s overstretched military and years of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) obstruction of arms bills, the Ma government’s ambiguous position on Taiwan’s final status only exacerbates Taiwan’s vulnerability.
The Ma administration’s ability to defend Taiwan is being compromised as Beijing applies the screws through likeminded elements in the KMT.
At the same time, Taiwan’s international space is likely to shrink further as allies gain the impression that the Ma regime is now more aligned with China.
Taiwan was already having serious problems expanding its international space via membership of international organizations and fostering relations with other states. But if Ma thought that Beijing would assist Taiwan in expanding its international space simply because a KMT government had been elected, then he was deluded.
The KMT has no clear idea where it is going, other than making every effort to impress Beijing with its cooperativeness.
Taiwan is therefore in dire straits —assuming its people value their political identity and sovereignty.
It is time those who do value such things wake up and energize their political institutions to meet this grim challenge.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath