President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is both president of Taiwan and chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). When it comes to the so-called Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), which he has yet to fully explain to the Taiwanese public, he seems to be favoring the latter role. He recently bundled off former KMT chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) to Beijing on his behalf to speak with Ma’s counterpart, Chinese President and General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Hu Jintao (胡錦濤). Wu’s remit was to convey Chairman Ma’s gratitude and to report his successful reconstruction of the party-state system, meaning he not only has his party, but also the public, under his thumb. Shades of Chairman Mao (毛澤東), surely?
Ma is happy to send politicians without any official position on official errands while he himself orchestrates affairs. His version of a China policy is essentially allowing his party to become a political appendage of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, doing the bidding of the Chinese communists. His out-of-hand rejections of petitions for a referendum on the ECFA, signed by hundreds of thousands of people, and the ECFA’s smooth passage through the legislature by a band of yes-men and women, are an affront to democracy in Taiwan.
Ma says the ECFA has nothing to do with politics, but General Secretary Hu did nevertheless extend a massive hand to him through his minion Wu, bringing up the possibility of further CCP-KMT cross-party talks. Hu said the ECFA showed the possibility of the two parties moving forward on cross-strait relations, based on a shared political foundation of opposing independence for Taiwan and adhering to the “1992 consensus.”
Hu also brought up the “one China” principle, and in doing so effectively introduced a political element into the ECFA. If Ma disagrees with Hu’s interpretation here, he ought to come forward and openly denounce it, or the ECFA will be forever associated with this political condition.
Instead, Ma and Wu simply appeal to the so-called “1992 consensus,” a cooked-up interpretation of the situation that betrays Taiwan’s sovereignty, showing precious little regard for Taiwan’s democracy. They believe that the KMT represents Taiwan, and say that the two-party high-level exchanges are indispensable to the furthering of cross-strait relations.
Beijing wants to characterize the “Taiwan question” as a residue of the old civil war fought between the Chinese Nationalists — the KMT — and the Chinese Communists, and is trying to wrest sovereignty from Taiwan. Whether or not Taiwanese give up their sovereignty to China is something that only they can decide: Taiwan’s democracy and future are not for the CCP or KMT to decide for their own mutual benefit.
If Ma truly has the public’s interests at heart he should be sincere with them. He seems to get all hot under the collar whenever the opposition questions his actions. Surely he can’t be stupid enough not to realize that this is precisely what an opposition party is supposed to do. The government’s responsibility is to lay out their plans and explain what they are doing, clearly and concisely, should any objections be raised.
In order to neutralize Hu’s political characterization of the ECFA, Ma should make the minutes of the negotiations available to the legislature and announce once and for all that there are absolutely no political preconditions, or secret understandings, behind the ECFA. Finally, the ECFA should be decided by a public referendum. The KMT have already shown themselves to be an appendage of the CCP, so they are no longer qualified to represent Taiwan.
James Wang is a political commentator.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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