The Presidential Office shot from the hip on Sunday, targeting former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and retired US diplomat John Tkacik over their criticism of a proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) between Taiwan and China.
As always, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) adopted a tone that managed to be both condescending and insulting. While it claimed to “respect” the views of those who expressed doubts about the virtues and viability of an ECFA, it also discarded Tkacik’s position as “misleading” and not representative of the majority of “professionals.” It also said it would be happy to “explain” the trade pact to Lee, as if the statesman were not qualified to reach his own conclusions.
“Please believe me,” Ma said while promoting the ECFA in Tainan County, a comment that again encapsulates the administration’s inability to treat opponents with respect. Having failed to “explain” the advantages — and dangers — of an ECFA, having excluded a large and more suspicious segment of society and having barred foreign media from attending Ma’s first talk on the matter, the Ma administration then goes on the offensive whenever someone does not “believe” it.
When a policy such as that of an ECFA with China holds the potential for far-reaching — and possibly irreparable — consequences for the sovereignty of this nation, surely the government that advocates it should do more than ask people to “believe” it and to “believe” China’s good intentions in the matter.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) can harp as much as he wants about Taiwan and China being “brothers” who “cannot sever their blood ties” and whose “problems [over the trade pact] will eventually be solved,” and Ma administration officials can repeat ad nauseam that they would step down if the pact included references to “one China” or resulted in increased imports of Chinese agricultural products, but the fact remains that all this is based on faith. Of course Chinese officials will not be so dumb as to be transparent about the political objectives of an ECFA — at least not in writing. The long history of Chinese pacts, however, should be enough to make us wary of Beijing’s intentions. And it is clear that Wen’s brothers are not equals, but rather part of a hierarchy in which China is the elder who calls the shots and slaps his young sibling around whenever the latter “misbehaves.”
There is no reason why Taiwanese should “believe” or “trust” the Ma administration over this major development in the nation’s history. It has failed to act with transparency and has time and again showed ineptitude in how it handles major policies. The US beef debacle and Typhoon Morakot come to mind. Even if we had reason to believe that Ma is “honest,” “sincere” and “incorruptible,” as some in the press have claimed, there are serious reasons to doubt the good character of other officials in his administration. For a multitude of very obvious reasons, we have even less cause to trust Beijing.
The Ma administration is proceeding unchecked toward the signing of an ECFA, caring little for different input and insulting those who disagree with it. Acting more like a bully than an honest broker, the administration is undeserving of our trust and must be forced to listen.
For far too long, opponents of an ECFA, or those who fear its consequences, have been ignored at no cost to the leadership. What this country needs now is not easily discarded comments by outsides like Tkacik, but mobilization by Taiwanese, who are the sole owners of their nation’s future.
In September 2013, the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) quietly released an internal document entitled, “Coursebook on the Military Geography of the Taiwan Strait.” This sensitive, “military-use-only” coursebook explains why it is strategically vital that China “reunify” (annex) Taiwan. It then methodically analyzes various locations of interest to People’s Liberation Army (PLA) war planners. The coursebook highlights one future battlefield in particular: Fulong Beach, in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District, which it describes as “3,000 meters long, flat, and straight,” and located at “the head of Taiwan.” A black and white picture of Fulong’s sandy coastline occupies the
US President Joe Biden’s first news conference last month offered reassuring and concerning insights regarding his administration’s approach to China. Biden did not mention the contentious meeting in Alaska where US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan confronted China’s top two foreign policy officials. The Americans implicitly affirmed the administration of former US president Donald Trump’s direct pushback against communist China’s repressive domestic governance and aggressive international behavior. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) and Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) had explicitly demanded a return to the policies of
Early last month, China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC), officially approved the country’s 14th Five-Year Plan. The strategy was supposed to demonstrate that China has a long-term economic vision that would enable it to thrive, despite its geopolitical contest with the US. However, before the ink on the NPC’s stamp could dry, China had already begun sabotaging the plan’s chances of success. The new plan’s centerpiece is the “dual-circulation” strategy, according to which China would aim to foster growth based on domestic demand and technological self-sufficiency. This would not only reduce China’s reliance on external demand; it would also
Interrupting the assimilation of Xinjiang’s Uighur population would result in an unmanageable national security threat to China. Numerous governments and civil society organizations around the world have accused China of massive human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and labeled Beijing’s inhumane and aggressive social re-engineering efforts in the region as “cultural genocide.” Extensive evidence shows that China’s forceful ethnic assimilation policies in Xinjiang are aimed at replacing Uighur ethnic and religious identity with a so-called scientific communist dogma and Han Chinese culture. The total assimilation of Uighurs into the larger “Chinese family” is also Beijing’s official, central purpose of its ethnic policies