President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) finally revealed his real plans to the public when he recently said that he would be willing to sign a peace agreement with China.
On Sept. 12, Ma’s “Siamese twin” King Pu-tsung (金溥聰), executive director of Ma’s re-election campaign office, said during an international press conference in the US that after winning re-election, Ma might visit China.
He also said that he did not rule out Taiwan and China signing a peace agreement. Because his remarks drew a strong reaction in Taiwan, the next day Presidential Office spokesman Fan Chiang Tai-chi (范姜泰基) backed away from the comments and quoted a statement from Ma saying he did not have any plans to visit China, that “there is no urgent need for political negotiations” and that there is “no timetable for holding political negotiations with China.”
The question is, how can so much have changed in just one month? Judging from the relationship between Ma and King, Ma listens to everything King says, which is why People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) talks of a “King and Ma system,” implying that King controls Ma.
On Monday, Ma changed his tune again when he said that a failure to include a peace agreement in his planned “golden decade” would make it seem as though Taiwan was not interested in addressing the matter for the next decade and that would be bad.
Here, we really have to ask who it is that would dislike such a situation.
Many people have heard rumors that China is displeased with Ma for not returning the favor China did for Taiwan when it made concessions on products to be included in the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement “early harvest” list and after helping Ma in the five special municipality elections.
These rumors have since been confirmed. An editorial in the Global Times, a daily Chinese tabloid newspaper affiliated to the official Chinese Communist Party newspaper, the People’s Daily, on Sept. 17 criticized Ma for making more than 20 requests for arms sales from the US.
The editorial said that whenever the US has sold arms to Taiwan in the past, Beijing had focused its retaliation on Washington, but in the future it should redirect some of its ire to Taiwan because China now has more ways to impose sanctions on Taipei than on Washington.
When talking about sanctions, they are of course targeting the Taiwanese economy, which is increasingly reliant on China. It is hard to imagine how Beijing could send out any stronger warnings than it did in 1996 when it shot missiles into Taiwanese waters.
While these comments were made in reference to arms deals, we need to pay attention to the date they were made, because they were published before the US had made any official decision on arms sales to Taiwan. More significantly, they came three days after Ma denied that he would be signing a peace agreement with China, which strongly suggests that China was using the issue to let off some steam.
Because China “feels bad” about Ma, all he could really do in response was to include the peace agreement in his “golden decade” policy.
It is clear that Ma is not only getting ready to serve up Taiwan to China on a platter, he is also taking away the right of future generations to make a choice for themselves.
All this talk of 10 years is a ruse. If Ma is re-elected, he will have surrendered in less than four years.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Drew Cameron
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS