An important issue that Taiwanese voters will have to evaluate as next year’s elections approach is not only what each party’s cross-strait policy or “China policy” is, but also how realistic it is. In line with this, barely a week before the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presented its policy, in an almost laughable essay, David Brown, as if pontificating as a hired gun for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the rest of the world, “demanded” that DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) present a realistic case.
“Taiwanese voters deserve a clear understanding of Tsai’s policies,” he wrote.
Ironically, at the very moment Brown was trying to pontificate for clarity, presidential candidate Tsai’s team was putting the finishing touches on the DPP’s policy. Regardless of that timing, what made Brown’s essay so ridiculous was his implication that it was time for Tsai — not the rest of the world — to do a reality check on their policies. This was more than the pot calling the kettle black; it was a stove-blackened pot questioning the cleanliness of an untarnished kettle.
First, examine the US. Brown says the future direction of US-Taiwan relations “depends” on Tsai’s clarity. Has Brown ever examined his own country’s clarity and past treatment in its relations with Taiwan? If one ever wanted a sandy foundation to inspire insecurity, it is there. In 1970, then-US national security adviser Henry Kissinger and US president Richard Nixon were willing to sacrifice Taiwan in the hopes of getting China as an ally against Russia. This worked to China’s advantage, but surprisingly Taiwan did not roll over and play dead. Then as 1979 dawned, then-US president Jimmy Carter used a surprise late-night telephone call to tell Taiwan he was switching the US embassy from Taipei to Beijing. Finally, today when pressed, the US says its official position on Taiwan is “undetermined.”
World War II ended in 1945, but the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty was blank on who controlled Taiwan or even if Taiwan should rule itself. So if the US, after 65 years, still cannot make up and express its mind on Taiwan, what compels people in the US to say Tsai needs to be absolutely clear?
On the other hand, the US does have a “one China” policy; in that policy, it states that it believes that there is only one China, just as it believes there is only one Canada and only one Libya.
However, the US position on “one China” ends there; it says nothing about including Taiwan, which is “undetermined.” The US also acknowledges China has its own “one China” policy, but despite the illusions of many, that does not mean that the US accepts China’s definition of what constitutes “one China” (ie, it includes Taiwan) any more than it accepts a definition by China that “one China” includes the moon. Unfortunately most people in the US and the rest of the world either do not know, realize or understand the nuances of that reality.
Let’s go to Taiwan’s current president, about whom Brown states voters have a three-year record on which to judge. How realistic and clear is President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) in his position?
First, Ma insists on the so-called “1992 consensus.” The consensus is an admitted fabrication by former National Security Council secretary-general Su Chi (蘇起). Is it Ma’s conviction that if he tells a lie long enough, people will believe? Is that clarity? So while Su Chi admits he invented the term in 2000, and former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), who was president in 1992, says there was no consensus, Ma still believes if he keeps repeating it, the gullible people of Taiwan and the world will believe it. Who really needs the reality check here?
Second, there is Ma’s definition of what constitutes “one China.” Ma believes that the Republic of China (ROC) is the true “one China.” He acknowledges that Beijing does not accept that and has its own definition. Nonetheless, he somehow still claims that this creates a mutual trust between them.
Ma states that according to the ROC Constitution, the ROC is the true “one China.” This implies that the “other” China that the PRC leaders rule is a phony China. Included in Ma’s claim is his vision that he rightfully rules not only China, but also Tibet, Mongolia and Xinjiang.
How this builds mutual trust on both sides and with the rest of the world defies credibility, unless the PRC leaders say to themselves: “We can go along with this fool and just wait for the apple to fall into our hands.”
Does the rest of the world realize this?
Tsai’s position on cross-strait relations deserves its own subsequent article. In brief, it holds that Taiwan is a maritime country and a young democracy. It refutes the so-called “1992 consensus,” saying it will not build its policies on such a fabrication. It has no ill will toward China and is willing to negotiate the “strategic stalemate” of their relationship and past history. It strongly supports regional peace. That is much closer to reality and a much healthier formula for all countries involved.
Jerome Keating is a commentator in Taipei.
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
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS