RECENT NEWSPAPER ARTICLES reported comments by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) at a military promotion ceremony that while East Asian countries and the US are increasingly worried about the intensifying problems on the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan’s allies are very impressed that cross-strait relations have remained stable. Based on this, Ma said that his policies have minimized China’s threat toward Taiwan, while at the same time meeting the interests of the US and other countries friendly to Taiwan.
The problem is that Ma’s policies are in fact strategically marginalizing Taiwan rather than minimizing the threat posed by China. The most evident case in point is the North Korean nuclear issue, to which Ma frequently refers.
In 2002, under former South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun, Seoul sought unilateral diplomatic reconciliation with North Korea and considered the US to be a source of instability on the Korean Peninsula. Roh’s flexible diplomacy, which kept an equal distance from both the US and China, almost caused the US-South Korea alliance to disintegrate. South Korea did not cooperate with the US on the North Korean nuclear issue and continued to extend a helping hand to North Korea despite Pyongyang’s repeated violations of disarmament agreements, leading North Korea to feel secure in the knowledge that it had strong backing.
However, the ineffective pressure from the six-party disarmament talks led the US to accept the request that it hold one-on-one talks with North Korea to discuss the nuclear issue. As a result, North Korea managed to bypass the South and negotiate with the US. South Korea was thus marginalized on negotiations over North Korean nuclear disarmament — the issue most important to its national security.
An examination of Ma’s policy of appeasement toward China following his accession to power leads one to ask the question: In what way does it differ from Roh’s policy toward North Korea?
Recently, Robert Sutter, who used to work at the US National Intelligence Council, said in a seminar that Ma’s policies have confirmed Beijing’s dominance over cross-strait relations. US Congressional Research Service analyst Shirley Kan (簡淑嫻) also suspects that Ma’s policies toward China could mean a fundamental change in US-Taiwan relations.
If Taipei no longer sees China as a threat, US strategic priorities for Taiwan are certain to change and the US might also give up on its policy of selling weapons to Taiwan aimed at maintaining cross-strait stability. In other words, Ma’s eight months in power have undermined the 60-year-old US-Taiwan strategic foundation — a problem similar to what happened to the US-South Korean alliance under Roh’s presidency.
As Taiwan increasingly leans toward China, the US will confer with Beijing to uphold its best interests in the Taiwan Strait. The reason for this is that Taiwan has abandoned its bargaining chips and this means that Washington no longer has any need to negotiate with Taipei. This is exactly Sutter’s point.
The current situation facing Taiwan is not that the threat from China has been minimized, but that Taiwan has been strategically marginalized. Despite this, Ma was pleased that no reference to Taiwan was made in the recent dialogue between the US and China. The Ma administration’s strategic ignorance has pushed national security to the brink of danger.
Lai I-chung is an executive committee member of the Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95