President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) on May 12 conducted a teleconference with the US’ Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Although Ma focused on his “three strategies” — to institutionalize the cross-strait reconciliation process, increase Taiwan’s contribution to international development and fuse national defense with diplomacy — he clearly stated the connection between the Taiwan Relations Act and the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China (ROC), buttering up US academics by praising the US as a long-time ally. The ultimate goal was to treat the Taiwan issue as part of the Chinese Civil War at an international event.
Ma promoted the benefits that his reconciliation with China would bring to international business, and followed Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in repeating the term “responsible stakeholder.” He seemed to have suddenly corrected his view that Taiwan should “move toward China, and then move toward the world through China” and instead agreed with Tsai’s strategy of “moving toward the world, and then moving toward China together with the world.”
However, not only did Ma conceal premises to the three strategies such as “under the framework of the ROC Constitution” and the so-called “1992 consensus,” he also ended his speech by stressing that “a country’s national security strategies must be based on full domestic political support. Our national security policies are based on the understanding that the ROC and its Constitution will never be altered.”
Obviously, Taiwan’s national security would mean nothing to Ma if there were no identification with China — Ma used the phrase “never-changing” to reinforce the importance of this. Ma’s frequent mention of “Taiwan’s democracy” and “responsible stakeholder” were simply cover-ups. And this isn’t just talk. The Ma government and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) have agreed to the WHO’s definition of Taiwan as a province of China.
When UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in 2007 misinterpreted the UN’s General Assembly Resolution 2758 as meaning that the UN had recognized Taiwan as being a part of China, the US and Japan immediately denounced him for it. Then, when former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) pushed for a referendum on self-determination in 2008, the US forced him to suppress the referendum, saying it would constitute a unilateral change to Taiwan’s status. Paying a heavy price, Taiwanese have learned a painful lesson: The “status quo” may not be changed unilaterally and they must play the role of the responsible stakeholder.
On the contrary, while the Ma government and the KMT have talked loudly about democracy, not being a troublemaker and not causing any unexpected incidents, they were also carrying out secret diplomacy; stealthily and unilaterally changing Taiwan’s status — replacing the view that neither Taiwan nor the ROC are sovereign states to one in which Taiwan is a province of China.
What Taiwanese do not understand is why Chen, who also tried to change the situation unilaterally, was sent to prison even before his changes had an effect, while the US praises Ma and says nothing even as Ma implements his unilateral changes and even as they are beginning to have an effect.
Taiwan’s status has a profound influence on US and Japanese security. As confused as the US’ diplomatic logic is now, how could it be able to lead Asian countries?
HoonTing is an independent Taiwanese researcher focusing on the issue of Taiwan’s status.
TRANSLATED BY KATHERINE WEI
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US