Diplomacy is an important realization of a nation’s sovereignty. The main goal of diplomats is to uphold the independence, integrity and security of their country. If the steadiness of a nation’s diplomacy is judged by whether another country rejects a request to establish relations, then that country has lost autonomy over its diplomatic affairs. Could it then still be called a country?
This logic is common sense in today’s world, yet President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), vying for re-election, does not have even the most basic understanding of this.
A proud Ma recently said in a public announcement that his “flexible diplomacy” has allowed Taiwan and China to escape vicious competition for diplomatic allies.
He said the government had learned that at least three diplomatic allies considered switching diplomatic recognition to China, but were rejected by Beijing. The logic of this statement is that we should all kneel down and thank China for its kindness and be grateful it allowed Taiwan to keep its diplomatic allies.
Ma clearly believes that Beijing accepts the “diplomatic truce” he has been advocating and Taiwan therefore no longer needs to put up with “blackmail” and “threats” from diplomatic allies. Indeed, he said that Taiwan can now confidently say no to its allies when it has to, which would earn it respect among other countries. He also said diplomatic expenditures have been cut over the past three years and these funds can be diverted to other areas.
The Ma administration, then, is not maintaining its diplomatic relations by strengthening ties with Taiwan’s allies. Instead, it seems to despise and loathe them. Is this really what Ma thinks diplomacy is about? What does he take our diplomatic allies for? Is Ma not worried about what would happen if they heard these remarks? If the Ma administration really thought this attitude would earn respect among other countries, then diplomatic relations should in fact have been further consolidated. Why, then, did three diplomatic allies want to establish ties with China?
Judging from Ma’s comments, the cuts to diplomatic expenditures during the past three years were done on purpose. Looking at the cuts to the national defense budget over the same period — not forgetting Taiwan’s problems in obtaining arms from the US — it is as plain as day that Ma’s “flexible diplomacy” and decision not to use force to resolve cross-strait disputes amount to laying down arms and accepting Taiwan’s sovereignty and security are dependent on China’s whim.
The legally assigned duties of the president of Taiwan include diplomacy, national defense and cross-strait relations. Now diplomacy and national defense have weakened and all Ma pays attention to is cross-strait relations, which he touts as being the warmest ever. What is Ma doing? The president of the Control Yuan recently lashed out at civil servants by saying people who receive monthly salaries of NT$90,000, but perform the job of someone who makes NT$20,000, were guilty of fraud. This was indeed a very fitting description.
Why doesn’t China need to establish diplomatic relations with Taiwan’s allies at the moment? It is because Ma promotes a “one China” policy — his economic and political policies are gradually undermining Taiwanese independence and promoting unification. The fact that Beijing’s dream of setting up a puppet regime in Taiwan can get a foothold in the government is a huge gift to China. China has searched for 60 years without finding someone, so this truly is an “historic moment.” All the Chinese Communist Party has to do now is to lend its support and it will get what it wants without even having to go to any great lengths. How can Ma believe that Taiwan can win respect from other countries and Taiwanese can live with dignity?
Recently, the US had its credit rating downgraded and global panic ensued. When the Ma administration’s reaction was slow, the Chinese government started giving Ma “directions” via its Web sites, telling him he must take action and those actions must be effective in the same tone one might adopt when speaking to a subordinate. How many Taiwanese are comfortable with this tone of voice?
There is huge conflict between Taiwan and China when it comes to their core interests. In fact, the two have hardly anything in common at all. China has shown itself very capable of treating the political parties in Taiwan differently, simply because China wants Taiwanese political parties that are beneficial to China, but those parties will never be good for Taiwan. The question is: What are such parties doing in Taiwan?
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
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
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS