I have a question. If “one China” refers to the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan, as President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) says it does, why did the Philippines extradite ROC citizens, together with other “Chinese,” to the People’s Republic of China (PRC)? How fatuous is this government to have reached a stage that it no longer dares even insist that Taiwanese and Chinese have different nationalities?
Ma is happy to bang on about how harmless the idea of “one China” is, but every day the folly of this position becomes more apparent. Beijing has its talons locked around Ma’s government, making it accept a consensus on Beijing’s “one China.” Beijing is now trying to transform principle into reality.
This international fraud case is a perfect example of the serious consequences of falling into the trap of the “one China” -principle. Taiwan forgoes its national identity and status as an independent country and, because the government has conceded that Taiwan belongs to China, the Philippines handed the suspects over to the Chinese government. The Philippines did this to allow China to deal with the matter, respecting a consensus arrived at by both parties.
Taiwan has been wronged by China and this loss of face is now being reflected in its dealings with the Philippines. Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) shies away from distinguishing between the people of Taiwan and the people of China, between citizens of the ROC and citizens of the PRC. He talks instead of people living in Taiwan and those living in China. If he can’t articulate this distinction, how can he expect other governments to understand?
This case involves judicial jurisdiction of criminals committing crimes overseas, but Ma’s government refrains from broaching the issue of nationality. So, the Philippines dutifully extradited those “Taiwanese” to China. This has again forced Taiwan’s hand, as it now has to ask China for access to the suspects.
This it can do under the terms of a previous mutual assistance agreement based, again, on the “one China” principle. Yes, the agreement benefits Taiwan because it means China might hand over the Taiwanese suspects, but it also represents a diplomatic victory for Beijing in the push to annex Taiwan, being yet another clarification of the position that Taiwan is part of China.
At the Tokyo International Film Festival last year, China wanted the Taiwanese contingent to arrive behind China’s, and recently Chinese tycoon Chen Guangbiao (陳光標) visited Taiwan to give cash handouts to the poor, amid much fanfare. No officials asked where this money came from or what it was for. This is all about identifying Taiwan as part of China, according to the “one China” principle.
Chen’s donations exposed poverty in Taiwan. Regardless, Ma still gave money during the approach to Lunar New Year. If he can’t help lift the poor from poverty as head of the government, what good is splashing cash around? It’s all hypocrisy and hidden agendas. This government really is something else.
James Wang is a media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS