To protect their national interests, it is necessary for heads of state to keep as many options open as possible and avoid making hard and fast comments. The US cannot make any concrete comments about whether it would dispatch military forces to defend Taiwan, should the need arise, nor can Taiwan make definitive comments about not asking the US for such assistance.
However, in a recent interview with CNN, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), being the genius “chief executive” of the “Taiwan region” that he is, of his own accord said he would never ask the US to go to war for Taiwan. He later said that this was his way of emphasizing to the US Taiwan’s resolve to defend itself as well as his confidence that there will not be a war in the Taiwan Strait during his time in office. What this really shows is that Ma is moving increasingly closer to China.
From the time that dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) fled to Taiwan until the end of former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) time in office, the US never questioned Taiwan’s determination to protect itself. The US wants to maintain the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait and has no desire to get involved in a war here. This is why the US stopped the Chiangs’ ambitions of “reconquering the mainland” and restricted the pro-independence administrations of former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen from moving too close to achieving de jure independence.
Ma’s recent moves toward “eventual unification” and his willingness to change the “status quo” and accept a Chinese takeover has certain US academics worried about Taiwan’s determination to defend itself and whether it is worth risking conflict with China over Taiwan.
If Ma wants to express his determination to give Taiwan the capabilities to protect itself, he could make a strong case based both on Taiwan’s interests and on the common interests of Taiwan and the US. Ma has, however, chosen to say that Taiwan is not worth the risk and that Taiwan is a domestic Chinese political issue.
If China wants to annex Taiwan, it can do so either by military force or by peaceful means. At the same time, Taiwan can use military force or peaceful means to defend itself. If China resorted to force, it would have to consider US intervention as the price it would have to pay, as well as the serious ramifications of this. For the past 60 years, US deterrence has provided the biggest guarantee for maintaining the cross-strait “status quo.”
Ma’s going on about self-defense is irresponsible. When it comes to military self-defense, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has blocked the procurement of arms in the past, and in terms of diplomatic defense, Ma has bowed down before the “one China” principle. He has also allowed flights between Taiwan and China to be carried out as though they are domestic flights and accepted observer status for Taiwan at the World Health Assembly under the name of “Chinese Taipei.” Ma has completely given up on defending Taiwan’s sovereignty. So what use is his talk about self-defense?
If China can use “peaceful” means to annex Taiwan, why would it have to resort to military force? And if China does not need to resort to military force, why would Ma need Taiwan to protect itself? If Ma is not even willing to protect Taiwan in the face of China’s “peaceful” attack, how can we expect him to defend Taiwan militarily? Everything Ma is doing is leading Taiwan into the tiger’s den, and he is becoming the “chief executive.”
James Wang is a media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
“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
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
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
RSS