In a videoconference with a US think tank a few days ago, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) referred to a poll by the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) that claimed 70 percent of people support an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China. He said this was because the public realizes that none of the six agreements China and Taiwan have reached over the past 10 months sacrificed Taiwan’s sovereignty, and that the government retained the public’s trust. Ma also said there was no question that the “six points” in Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) New Year speech were a positive development for cross-strait relations, and that the ECFA proposal was based on concrete suggestions in those points.
Ma’s jokey dismissal of concerns that he is selling Taiwan down the river is worlds away from the public’s position on this issue. He has not acknowledged that the “70 percent support” in the MAC poll is inexplicable. He privileges inflated opinion polls over genuine public opinion. Before the MAC poll came out, a media outlet conducted a poll that showed 90 percent of respondents felt the government should explain what an ECFA would entail — and that more than 70 percent did not know what an ECFA meant. A sizable majority of the public thus has no idea why the government is in such a frenzy. That raises doubts about the MAC poll’s credibility.
It is frightening how Ma is connecting the ECFA to Hu’s “six points,” the first of which states that China is committed to “one China” and that China and Taiwan belong to “one China.” Other issues — a comprehensive cross-strait economic agreement, Taiwan’s international participation and a peace agreement — must be handled within a “one China” framework.
Ma said that Hu’s “six points,” which aim to annex Taiwan, were a “positive development” and he has proposed that the ECFA follow on from this “progress.” The ECFA — in the guise of an economic pact — is thus a platform for binding Taiwan to China. Relinquishing Taiwan’s power and humiliating its people while claiming that sovereignty is not being compromised is balderdash. Ma must think the public is easily deceived, or else how would they fall for this ganging up with China to advance unification by economic means?
During Ma’s election campaign, he stressed he was running for the presidency of a sovereign nation, but all actions since his inauguration have aimed at roping Taiwan to China in order to achieve his dream of unification. He has exposed Taiwan to China like a moth to a flame, with no regard for a decaying economy and the tough times the public are experiencing.
Judging from his policy choices, Ma believes the public will accept China out of utter desperation if the economy continues to plummet. According to figures released by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, unemployment increased again to 5.81 percent last month, while an IMF report stated that unemployment reached 6.3 percent. When graduates enter the picture later this year, these numbers will grow. Tough times may please Ma, because the unemployed may fantasize about the Chinese economy finding them work, and this could increase support for an ECFA.
The use of phony opinion polls makes a farce of democracy. In Ma’s videoconference, he said that Taiwan is a democracy, that no one can sell out Taiwan and that all citizens must decide on its future. But this contradicts his actions: keeping the details of an ECFA secret, not allowing the legislature to monitor any agreement and dismissing calls for a referendum on the matter.
By “all citizens,” then, does Ma mean all 1.3 billion Chinese?
Ma’s rhetoric and trickery have gone largely uncontested for almost a year. Now, he is creating an irreversible trend toward unification using hypnotic slogans that entice the unwary. Once this goal’s foundations, such as an ECFA, are complete, Taiwan will be helpless when dealing with China and there will be no turning back. Look at Hong Kong: Apart from having their economic fantasies shattered, Hong Kong’s residents can’t even elect their own chief executive.
This leads to the key question: Will Taiwanese simply stand around as Ma sells Taiwan to Beijing?
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