President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) often asks his critics why they question his determination to uphold Taiwan’s national interests and dignity as a sovereign nation. A review of some of his remarks will perhaps provide the president with a hint as to why so many people continue to remain stubbornly unconvinced.
On Monday, when meeting with Texas Governor Rich Perry, Ma referred to Taiwan as a “province” when speaking of the sister-state relations between Taiwan and Texas. Even though Resolution 81(R) HR, 1593 passed last June by the Texas House of Representatives, describes the link between Texas and Taiwan as a “sister-state relationship,” Ma chose to say “sister state and sister province” relationship when he expressed gratitude to the governor over the passage of the resolution.
This is not the first time that Ma has referred to Taiwan as a region when meeting with visiting guests. Since taking office in May 2008, Ma has informed the foreign press that his government does not subscribe to the “state-to-state theory.” This idea was first put forward in 1999 by then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) to define Taiwan’s relations with China as a “special state-to-state relationship,” and was elaborated on in 2000 by then-president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) description of Taiwan and China as “one country on each side [of the Taiwan Strait].”
Ma rationalized his reduction of Taiwan to an “area” by stressing his government’s adherence to the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution, which states that the ROC is an independent, sovereign state whose territory includes China. Hence, Ma said the relationship between Taiwan and China is one of two regions, with Taiwan, a province, known as the “Taiwan area,” and China as “the mainland area.”
Interestingly, Ma does not refer to Taiwan as a province when talking to local audiences. Whenever elections are closing in and campaigning steps into high gear, voters can hear Ma, along with other Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) heavyweights, roaring slogans that trumpet the name Taiwan. Whenever they mention Taiwan in their campaign speeches, the electorate assumes that the word “Taiwan” implies the country for which the official name is the ROC.
Given that his definition of the word “Taiwan” seems to depend on the occasion, it is no wonder there is continued public doubt over Ma’s dedication to safeguarding the country’s dignity as a sovereign state. If Ma wants to be clear about his meaning, in future whenever he talks to the people of Taiwan and uses the appellation “Taiwan,” he should not do so in shorthand, but rather use the term “Taiwan Province,” as he so clearly did with the Texas governor.
Adding to the public’s confusion over the Ma administration’s perception of Taiwan’s status comes a surprising account of the cross-strait relationship from a member of Ma’s own KMT.
On Friday, KMT caucus secretary-general Lin Hung-chih (林鴻池) said that the legislature, instead of reviewing the economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) article by article, could only vote to accept or reject the pact because the planned cross-strait trade agreement should be seen as a “quasi-international agreement between two countries.”
In light of these issues, how are Taiwanese to be persuaded that the Ma administration will work to safeguard Taiwan’s sovereignty and dignity when Ma and members of his KMT continually vacillate on their understanding of Taiwan’s status?
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