When Wang Yi (王毅), director of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, met with Taiwanese living in the US while on a recent visit there, he expressed his views about Taiwan’s upcoming presidential election — clearly an attempt to influence its critically important result. Wang also said that the issue of a military threat to Taiwan is absurd, saying that as long as President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) are in power and Taiwanese independence does not become an issue again, there will be no missile issue or military problem. China has already started its flagrant campaigning for Ma.
Beijing backs Ma because he goes along with China and the so-called “1992 consensus” on the “one China” principle. However, Beijing’s support for Ma is not necessarily out of admiration for him. Rather, it pins its hopes on Ma’s firm belief that eventual unification with China is inevitable.
Almost immediately after Wang was done promoting Ma, he warned Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and the 23 million people of Taiwan that China would not accept anyone taking power who overturns the “1992 consensus” and would most likely suspend current bilateral agreements — such as the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), Chinese tourists visiting Taiwan and provincial-level buy-Taiwan delegations — if the DPP did win power.
Wang gives us exactly the same false sense of improved cross-strait relations and warmer ties as Ma. At what price are these so-called improvements made? Ma sells Taiwan short by making it a part of China and he backs policies that support an inevitable unification. Retired high-ranking military officers and diplomatic officials have also recently made certain exchanges in favor of Beijing’s facade of goodwill. However, as China openly declares that placing sanctions on Taiwan is a possibility in the very near future, Wang’s words slice right through Ma’s claims about improvements in cross-strait relations and warming ties. It is becoming increasingly clear that whether Ma’s self-righteous policies are allowed to continue really rests in the hands of the Chinese.
It is also worth noting that Wang keeps saying that Taiwan’s elections are an issue which concerns Taiwan alone and has nothing to do with Beijing — just as he says that the Taiwan issue is an internal issue for China. China’s intervention in Taiwan’s presidential election simply becomes a matter of course.
Why does Ma not protest China’s meddling in our nation’s elections? When Hans van Baalen, vice chairman of the European Parliament’s Taiwan Friendship Group, said if he were a citizen of Taiwan he would vote for Tsai, the Ma administration sent its dogs out to reprimand him, saying it was unacceptable for any foreign national to interfere in Taiwan’s domestic affairs. Shouldn’t the Ma administration use the same standards in rebutting Chinese officials, especially when they are using much stronger rhetoric and actions in their attempts to control who becomes our president?
That Beijing keeps praising Ma for being a loyal subordinate is alarming and causes many to speculate about whether he is really on Taiwan’s side, especially since his neutral stance is exactly what wins him favor with Beijing in the first place. In the past, whenever the opposition raised doubts about Ma’s position on Taiwan, he typically rebutted their doubts immediately. Now, however, as Wang lavishes praise on Ma — causing many of us to question Ma’s loyalty — why doesn’t Ma rush to draw a clear line of demarcation between them in order to regain the trust of Taiwanese? If he fails to do this, as the election draws near and more Chinese officials come out showing their support for him, who will believe him when he says he is a Republic of China citizen?
Also noteworthy is Wang’s grand claim that China’s military threat to Taiwan is not an issue. This is just as preposterous as General Chen Bingde (陳炳德), the People’s Liberation Army chief of staff, claiming on his recent US visit that China does not currently have any missiles pointed at Taiwan. Of course, it can easily be said that Wang and Chen are simply employing different means to achieve the same end.
As Ma keeps promoting the benefits of cross-strait relations, China continues to increase its military threat. Ma’s lies are only helping their cause. Beijing denies outright having missiles pointed directly at Taiwan, saying that it is not an issue. If Taiwanese and the international community fall for the Chinese Communist Party and the KMT’s two-man gong show, a rationalization of China’s military threat to Taiwan is inevitable and China’s use of military-threat politics to put pressure on Taiwan will become commonplace.
Ma pays no heed to the more than 1,000 missiles aimed directly at Taiwan. Instead, he continues to seek support for: the “1992 consensus”; direct flights to and from China; the “three links” of direct post, transportation and trade; the ECFA; Chinese tourists and students coming to Taiwan, and the sale of Taiwanese agricultural produce in China.
Ma feels like he has outdone his predecessors, claiming these trade and tourism agreements with Beijing as his own political achievements and avidly promoting them at home and abroad.
All of these so-called achievements are a drug with which Beijing controls Taiwan. The more of the drug Ma consumes, the easier he is to manipulate and the easier it is to control Taiwan. Close your eyes and think about it for a minute: If we let Ma serve another term as president and thus continue to depend on the China drug, eventually no one will be able to win a presidential election. Isn’t this the same as relying on Chinese leaders to appoint our president for us?
Translated by Kyle Jeffcoat
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers