President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) have both said the government’s position and policies on cross-strait issues were not so different than those of the Democratic Progressive Party (DDP) and they couldn’t understand why DPP Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) thought the government has changed its policies. If Tsai saw this statement, she would probably feel upset but also find it amusing at the same time. For the pan-green camp, the real problem is the Ma administration’s lack of understanding. <>
After 12 years under the leadership of former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and eight years under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), Taiwan completed its democratic transformation and also developed a sense of a community of fate. Regardless of whether you prefer Taiwan or the Republic of China (ROC) as the nation’s title, both refer to the land and the people of Taiwan. Disputes over the future of Taiwan can be settled through democratic procedure.
However, the Ma administration’s complete disregard of Taiwan’s sovereignty has severely affected the public consensus on a community of fate. Thus, the Ma government has had no choice but to resort to the myth from the Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) era that the ROC includes both Taiwan and the mainland regions. As this does not fit in with the international reality and public sentiment, the pan-green camp has stated that this myth was not only a joke, but also a pack of insidious lies.
Because of its failure to understand the bond shared by a community of fate, the Ma administration’s position and reckless attitude in dealing with issues over Taiwan’s sovereignty have been astonishing.
Take the so-called “1992 consensus” and the concept of “one China with each side of the Taiwan Strait having its own interpretation” advocated by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) for example.
Considering Taiwan’s international restrictions and diverging domestic consensus, the KMT’s original intention was to safeguard the nation’s sovereignty and maintain cross-strait stability. However, as the concept of a community of fate was consolidated over the past 20 years, the public has become more intolerant of the aforementioned discourse and even sees it as a political tool.
The Ma administration has chosen to go against public opinion and has done everything it can to please the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It has tried to meet Beijing’s definition of “one China,” with Ma’s talk of a “Taiwan region” being perfect proof of this. It has even attempted to hide or change such national symbols as the country’s flag and the title of president.
The government maintains that it has made these compromises to encourage cross-strait peace, cross-strait economic and trade benefits and to gain diplomatic breathing room for Taiwan.
From the perspective of a community of fate, however, if a nation compromises its own sovereignty, economic and trade benefits and diplomatic room are worthless.
These positions, attitudes and actions have made the public doubt the Ma administration.
For instance, the KMT must feel that it has put a lot of effort into the KMT-CCP forums and must have started to feel complacent that it had opened a new communication channel between high-level officials from Taiwan and China.
But if the DDP had dispatched its chairman to discuss the arms sale package with officials of the US Department of Defense during its time in office, how would the pan-blue camp have interpreted or criticized such a move?
The pan-green camp feels that the US has been a long-standing ally of Taiwan’s, while the CCP is Taiwan’s only possible threat.
From the perspective of a democracy, Ma’s recent actions can only be considered “under-the-table” operations.
In addition, the recent toxic milk powder debacle caused widespread public apprehension in Taiwan. Since the scandal came to light more than 50 days ago, the government has failed to apologize for the matter, organize negotiations with Beijing about compensation or establish a management mechanism to deal with tainted food from China.
The only concrete move the Ma administration made was to dispatch a group of experts to China to conduct a three-day inspection.
Under the pressure of the anti-government, anti-China rally on Oct. 25th, Ma criticized the response of Chinese businesspeople to public anger.
Can you imagine what would have happened if South Korean President Lee Myung-bak dealt with concern about tainted US beef imports using methods similar to the KMT? The KMT’s China-leaning attitude is absolutely ridiculous.
The Ma administration’s position, attitude and actions are clearly tilted toward Beijing. It has violated principles that a normal government of an independent country should observe. DPP supporters have lost trust in the government.
The Ma administration does not need to try to explain itself any further. What it needs to do is change its policies to respond to the public.
Lee Wen-chung is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
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
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS