Speaking last week at the opening ceremony of a conference of diplomats stationed overseas, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) proposed four targets for Taiwan’s diplomats. The odd thing is that, despite the difficulties Taiwan faces with regards to national sovereignty, the goals he proposed did not include that of consolidating Taiwan’s sovereign status.
Instead, Ma invited overseas diplomats to visit southern Taiwan after the conference and have a look at how areas damaged by Typhoon Morakot two years ago have been reconstructed. He suggested that when they went back to their stations abroad, they could help publicize Taiwan’s reconstruction achievements. Therefore, at the end of a conference for which they had been brought back from abroad at a cost of more than NT$20 million (US$690,500), the diplomats set off southward for a tour of the typhoon-stricken area.
Our diplomats abroad have had very little to do during Ma’s three years in office. No longer charged with upholding Taiwan’s national sovereignty, some diplomats with too much time on their hands have got into trouble over sexual harassment, extramarital affairs and other mischief, while others became involved with domestic politics.
Now, with next year’s presidential and legislative elections approaching, it is possible that our idling diplomats will be called upon to help out with Ma’s election campaign. That would be typical of Ma’s timid approach to overseas affairs and his enthusiasm for the struggle at home.
Our diplomats haven’t been doing their proper jobs, so it his hardly surprising that alarm bells keep ringing about the intentions of some of those countries that maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Ma himself recently revealed that at least three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies would like to establish diplomatic relations with China, but that China had turned down their advances.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) said at least six diplomatic allies were wavering, but this was not the focus of last week’s conference.
Ma is by his own admission fully aware of the precarious state of Taiwan’s diplomatic relations, but he did not tell the diplomats to put more effort into consolidating Taiwan’s diplomatic ties. Instead, he went around telling everyone what a good thing it was that China had turned down those three countries’ offers to exchange ambassadors, and how this was a beneficial result of his “diplomatic truce” policy.
A funny kind of leader it is who sees the continuing stability of our diplomatic relations as depending not on our own efforts, but on a hostile country’s reluctance to cozy up with our allies.
Ma reminded the diplomats’ conference that “our country,” ie, the Republic of China (ROC), had lost the right to represent China in the UN after the passage of UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 on Oct. 25, 1971. Moreover, he is constantly trying to fool himself and everyone else that Taiwan and China arrived at a “1992 consensus,” under which both sides purportedly agreed that there was only “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation.
Does this not amount to an admission that it is the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that has the right to represent China these days? That being the case, what use is any talk of each side agreeing on there being just “one China” and only disagreeing about how it is interpreted? The only possible purpose is to fool the people of Taiwan.
On the other hand, Ma says he is preserving a “status quo” under which there will be “no unification, no independence and no use of force.” In practice, this can only mean sitting on our hands and awaiting our doom.
In other words, when Ma says he wants the ROC’s diplomacy to return to normal, it means not challenging the PRC’s right to represent China, while downgrading Taiwan to the status of a region within “one China.”
When it comes to Taiwan’s survival or disappearance as a sovereign nation, Ma doesn’t seem to care.
The truth of the matter is that Ma’s China-friendly policies are entirely in keeping with China’s goal of eventual unification, which means eventual annexation of Taiwan.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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