Make a choice — stop Ma
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) thanks-but-no-thanks to future US military involvement in the Taiwan Strait promises to outlive all assurances his administration will be providing to Washington externally and Taiwanese internally. The simple reason is that the prime beneficiary of the deliberate remark is China, the nation toward which Ma is diligently prodding Taiwan.
That declaration went further than just punctuating a CNN interview, in which Ma went to some length to convince the West that the incorporation of Taiwan’s economy into China’s would advance both the causes of international trade and regional peace. It became difficult to resist the impression that Ma is promoting the myth of a peaceful and voluntary surrender of Taiwan to China.
Ma’s unification dream is shared by only a fraction of the Taiwanese population. This is evidenced by public polls, conducted by both pro-Taiwan and pro-China organizations, invariably showing that an overwhelming majority of Taiwanese favoring an indefinite separation of Taiwan from China.
Taiwanese consciousness, the sentiment that most succinctly reflects Taiwanese longing for formal sovereignty, actually rose in the last two years in spite of Ma and his Chinese National Party’s (KMT) constant attempt to ignore, if not suppress it. Democracy and freedom, both integral to sovereignty when Taiwan is facing an authoritarian China as its sole external enemy, are ingrained in Taiwanese daily life.
Therefore, any illusion that the absorption of Taiwan into China will be peaceful and painless should have evaporated the moment Beijing promulgated its “Anti-Secession” Law, the Chinese statute that outlaws Taiwan’s sovereignty and its advocacy as well as spelling out conditions necessitating China’s use of force against Taiwan.
Ma and the KMT have been trying to drive a wedge among Taiwanese by using economic bait with some success. However, the resulting and widening gulf between the haves and have-nots will only sow more seeds of instability.
It is unfortunate the collective memory of Taiwan’s last transfer of rule of similar magnitude at the end of World War II has all but faded away, even though the suffering lasted at least two generations for Taiwanese.
Taiwanese didn’t have a choice then, but Taiwanese have a choice now, albeit one that would require considerable sacrifices not unlike prices with which other societies pay for their freedom.
Significantly, the dynamics involved in Taiwan’s status are far more complex today than the time of the last “sky change” more than 60 years ago.
Ma’s push-away of the US may have negated the ambiguity of the Taiwan Relations’ Act that obviously helped to maintain tranquility in the region for decades. Yet, the strategic significance of Taiwan to the US-Japan alliance remains unchanged.
Simply put, peaceful annexation of Taiwan by China will never happen. Instead, the path of least resistance would dictate that Taiwan be put through an indefinite period of turmoil before — and if — all powers involved can forge a formula for the status of Taiwan that could guarantee regional stability.
Taiwanese are facing two clear options: Stop Ma and the KMT now or prepare to endure being a forsaken nation that is perpetuated by external forces.
HUANG JEI-HSUAN
California
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
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS