Modus vivendi remains the unwavering strategy of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration on cross-strait issues — to the point of brushing aside the diplomatic reality.
In an exclusive interview with the Taipei Times on Wednesday, Ma dismissed the idea that Taiwan should be considered anything but a normal country. The nation governs itself, the president said, and with 23 allies and diplomatic offices in another 87 countries, “our relations with those countries are not any less than a UN member state enjoys.”
Let’s talk quality, not quantity. A UN member state can count on its normal status and the help of other countries and international organizations in ways that Taiwan cannot. That is a lesson Taiwan learned during the SARS outbreak, when it was isolated from the help of WHO experts until the crisis had almost completely run its course.
“Normal” and “independent” are not one and the same. That this nation is independent is clear. What Taiwan seeks at this point is the international community’s concern for its security. With no hope of winning recognition in any context from China — the sole threat to the nation’s sovereignty — we must ensure that Taiwan is part of an international network that respects its independence and the rights of its people to representation at key global bodies.
While insisting the nation has already achieved normality, Ma said relations with China remained abnormal in terms of finance and trade. In this context, he was ready to portray the country as still in the process of normalization: “Do you think we are a normal country if our ships are required to make detours to a third country [to reach China]?”
Normalizing economic ties with China does not constitute normalizing the country. No amount of negotiation with Beijing over trade and financial mechanisms will win room on the issue of Taiwan’s future, nor gain it recognition from other governments. It is this point that triggers concern that the government’s cross-strait policies could further constrain Taiwan by leaving it overly dependent on China’s economy without addressing Taiwan’s status as a country.
Ma is not concerned that Beijing is seeking to control Taiwan through political and economic weapons. The president dismissed the argument that there are dangers in depending on China, saying: “We have not seen any attempts by communist China to force Taiwan to do things we cannot accept,” nor “have we lost the freedom to make decisions.”
Ma said Taiwanese must have confidence in the nation’s strengths, including democracy and human rights, which help keep the playing field level. That these are invaluable goes without saying, and they have won respect and sympathy abroad for Taiwan in the face of an obnoxious neighbor. However, it would be foolish to think these things in themselves have the power to obstruct Beijing’s plans for unification.
Nor should we pretend that a “diplomatic truce” with China has weakened Beijing’s aggressive agenda. Ma said that Beijing was tacitly adhering to this “truce” and that this would allow Taiwan to pursue economic opportunities and greater international participation, while preventing its remaining allies from changing sides. This is possible, Ma argued, because Beijing and Taiwan are refraining from engaging “in vicious attacks,” which he called “fruitless efforts.”
While Ma noted that such attacks have not helped Taiwan in recent years, he did not mention that the strategy has paid handsome dividends for Beijing. China has added to its list of allies and squeezed Taiwan’s voice internationally.
This, if nothing else, illustrates the chronically precarious situation of a country that Ma calls “normal.”
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase