President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is now well into his fourth year in office. It would be nice if he were to talk a bit less and do a bit more, but by this point there seems little chance of it.
Ma has been talking again recently. Referring to controversy over whether there was ever any so-called “1992 consensus” between Taiwan and China, Ma said that the main point was not what you called it. The main thing, he said, was whether there is in fact a consensus that there is one China, with each side having its own interpretation of what exactly “one China” is. He said the consensus that exists between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait is precisely that, and that the experience of the past three years shows that China can accept this consensus. The formula is workable and that is the main thing, Ma said.
Was he talking off the top of his head again? Perhaps he would like to explain to us how this consensus is being “interpreted” in the case of the thoroughly Taiwanese film Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale.
Seediq Bale is a Taiwanese movie through and through. It was produced and directed in Taiwan, and it is all about Taiwanese history, recounting the tale of Aborigines’ resistance against foreign invaders. So why did this purely Taiwanese production get labeled as coming from “China” at the Venice International Film Festival? What’s more, the Ma government’s attempts to intervene have only made matters worse, with Taiwan getting labeled as “Chinese Taipei,” while there was no sign of our national flag. Didn’t Ma say that the cross-strait consensus is that each side can interpret “one China” in its own way? Didn’t he say that the consensus is workable because China accepts it? If so, how did we get into a situation where China can’t even accept a movie? The consensus, if there is such a thing, is evidently not working at all.
It is a pity that we have a head of state who can’t stop spouting fiction and who is totally shameless about it. You can tell a lie 100 times, but it still won’t be the truth, but if you brainwash someone 100 times, you might turn them into a fool. That is the real danger.
Recently, Ma’s election campaign office came up with another smokescreen, with campaign director King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) saying that the real consensus is that Taiwanese people should have a good life. What does “a good life” mean, exactly? To put it in a nutshell, it is about the economy. Politicians love to talk about the economy when they are trying to solicit votes and the most commonly heard catchphrase is one made popular by former US president Bill Clinton: “It’s the economy, stupid.” A lot of people like to parrot this slogan, but they are forgetting something. What they forget is that the US at the time enjoyed unparalleled superpower status, and that was what allowed the Clinton campaign to focus on economic issues. In other words, maintaining the economy is a basic standard for someone running a government, but it is by no means the only condition that politicians have to meet.
Every country has its basic values. Americans are proud to think of themselves as the world’s foremost citizens, and they don’t want that notion to be challenged. If whoever is in charge of the country lets the nation’s dignity slip in this respect, his popularity is sure to take a big hit. For example, when US President Barack Obama visited China soon after taking office, he was lambasted by US media for behaving in an excessively humble manner, and his popularity ratings took a nosedive.
What is so dangerous about the Ma campaign’s attempts to brainwash the public? It is not a good thing when whoever is running a country thinks about nothing but the economy and claims that “having a good life” is the most important thing, while paying scant regard to other values of nationhood.
There are plenty of examples in the history of mankind. For example, in the ninth century BC, the Phoenicians established the Carthaginian empire in the Mediterranean Sea. The Phoenicians’ influence and that of Carthage spread far and wide at the time, but what is left of them now? The ruins of Carthage that you can see today are the remains of what the Romans built when they colonized the area after destroying the original city. The city that existed before the Carthaginian empire was extinguished was reduced to ashes long ago. Before it was destroyed, Carthage signed three peace agreements with Rome, but these agreements were followed by the three Punic Wars, and the final outcome was that the city was razed to the ground. So what good did those treaties of friendship serve? What protection did they give to Carthage in the end?
Is it enough for Taiwanese just to have a “good life?” It might be enough for some people, but for others, it is even more important to live in security and dignity. Such people will find the standard that King set to be much too low.
Besides, a lot of people have the impression that the main thing the Ma government has been trying to do is to let a minority of people live a good life, while most Taiwanese have no share in it. If Ma and King ask their accusers to prove their point, they need look no further than the wealth of official statistics published by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics — and those official figures can’t be wrong, can they?
Ma says that his pledge of “no unification” means that there will be no negotiations for unification during his presidency. However, given this administration’s propensity for fabrication and brainwashing, the harsh reality is that “not negotiating about unification” is not the main point. The main question is whether Taiwan will end up being “unified” with China because of Ma’s inability to defend it. Can Ma be trusted to keep to his pledge of not negotiating about unification? Do we really want to give Ma a free hand to decide whether he wants to stick to his word or break it?
Translated by Julian Clegg
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing