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.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
RSS