Former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) and the now forgotten Yen Chia-kan (嚴家淦) ruled Taiwan for 39 years. The pro-localization governments of former presidents Lee Teng-huei (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) were in power for 20 years.
In these 59 years, nobody ever talked about the Finlandization of Taiwan, nor did anyone openly advocate the US abandoning Taiwan and allowing China to annex it to avoid conflict with Beijing.
However, after President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been in office for a mere three years, both these things have happened. A series of egghead academics in the US have come out with these suggestions, which are very damaging to Taiwan’s survival and national interests.
It is overly polite to talk about the Finlandization of Taiwan. In name, Finland was a neutral country that in practice became a political satellite of the Soviet Union — but at least it was still a country.
When the Chiangs were in power, the Chinese Communist Party called them the running dogs of US imperialism. To put it in a nicer way, they were a political satellite of the US — but at least Washington viewed Taiwan as a country.
Ma includes Taiwan in his definition of China. However, China does not view Taiwan as a country, but rather as an equivalent of Austria and the Sudeten-German areas in Czechoslovakia that Adolf Hitler wanted to annex.
Back then, the UK didn’t have enough military power or the determination to fight the Nazis and wanted peace at all costs. Then-British prime minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement, which accepted the German annexation of the Sudetenland in exchange for “peace.”
The territorial occupation accepted in the Munich Agreement may have been made in the name of peace, but having been given an inch, Hitler took a mile, making war unavoidable.
This is a prime example of a failed attempt at avoiding war. However, these egghead academics in their ivory towers who think they have foresight want the US to abandon Taiwan to avoid conflict with a rising China.
These theories are the result of Ma’s kowtowing toward China, which makes it seem as if the Taiwanese want to return to China just as the Sudeten-Germans wanted to be returned to German rule.
Ma and some other local residents who see themselves as Chinese may want to “return” to China, but the majority of Taiwanese have no intention of being integrated into China. Conceding Taiwan to obtain peace would be against the UN Charter, international treaties, democratic values and US law.
The most effective way to deal with a “rising” China and avoid war would be the strategy the US used against the Soviet Union during the Cold War: increasing military power to maximize deterrent capabilities, relying on high-level negotiations to avoid misunderstandings, forming alliances to maintain the balance of power and using human rights and democracy to spur internal change.
The US is already implementing the first three points and only the fourth point still needs more work.
It will take time to spur internal change in China, but Ma is betraying Taiwanese public opinion in his rush to meet China’s interests and change the “status quo.” With a “genius” like Ma here in Taiwan, it is little wonder that more and more of these egghead scholars are starting to crop up in the US.
James Wang is a media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto says he knows how to fix the problems facing Indonesia. Yet his economic mismanagement and authoritarian tendencies are steering the nation toward a familiar mix of currency instability and political chaos. The world’s fourth-most populous nation risks reversing the hard-won democratic and business reforms that came after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. At that time, the rupiah collapsed and the political upheaval that followed forced former president Haji Mohamed Suharto from power. Prabowo’s administration is ignoring similar warning signs. That disconnect was apparent in a national address on Wednesday, when Prabowo projected the swagger that has
RSS