Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Vice Chairman John Chiang (蔣孝嚴) told a Washington audience this week that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) would be “necessarily tough” with China to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty. Note the qualifier.
Many in Taiwan have felt that it has been necessary for some time now to stand tough with China, but Ma’s repeated admonitions that he will do everything to defend Taiwan’s sovereignty have not been backed by any action.
This is, after all, the man who allowed himself to be addressed by China’s top cross-strait envoy as “Mr” instead of “President” — not even the “Mr President” that American Chamber of Commerce members used in addressing questions to him, a term that had Hon Hai Precision Industry Co chairman Terry Gou (郭台銘) waxing indignant recently.
It has been under Ma that the national flag was ordered removed from venues that Chinese envoys would be using and from anywhere near those venues, even if it meant police confiscating flags from people protesting near the sites.
It has been under Ma that Taiwan gained observership at the WHO’s annual meeting, but at the cost of cementing Beijing’s role as the one who “allowed” Taiwan entry — while Taiwan’s presence at many lower-level medical and public health meetings has been reduced to almost none. It has been under Ma that Beijing’s interference in Taiwan’s presidential and legislative elections has grown.
Chiang also told the Heritage Foundation that “we” have not done any damage to the sovereignty issue, but since he was speaking in his capacity as a senior KMT official, it is hard to know if he was talking just about Ma and his administration or about the KMT’s love-fest with the Chinese Communist Party. KMT members high and low have jumped at the chance to attend several dubious, touchy-feely meetings in China, where the two long-time rivals have proclaimed their new-found affinity for one another and their desire to see China “unified.” Chiang continued to blur the line between party activities and those of this nation-state, saying the KMT policy on cross-strait relations would not change over the next four years.
This question of party affiliation would not even have to have been raised if Taiwan were able to send senior government officials or Cabinet members to Washington to talk directly with their US counterparts, instead of having to rely on former officials and party apparatchiks. They can’t and so Chiang was dispatched to “reassure” Washington in the wake of the Jan. 14 presidential election that cross-strait relations would remain stable for the next four years, despite Ma’s campaign trail musings of a potential peace agreement — at some date yet to be determined — with Beijing.
While his words may have quelled nervous nellies in Washington, they were hardly a balm to those back home. On the one hand, he told the Heritage group that Ma was in “no rush, no hurry” to enter political negotiations with Beijing, but then went on to make the remarkable statement that maintaining the cross-strait “status quo” has “nothing to do with the sovereignty issue.” That is clearly a case of not seeing the forest because of the tree standing in your way.
He also said the government was aware that many feared Taiwan might “fall into a trap [with China] and our sovereignty will be eroded ... We would never allow it to happen.”
That is the trouble with erosion: It usually happens so gradually that it is easy to overlook. Chiang and his cohorts can’t see the damage their love affair with China has already caused Taiwan. Given that he also thinks that relations between Taipei and Washington are closer than at any time since 1949, it is clear that Chiang — like so many others in the KMT and in the government — needs stronger eyeglass prescriptions so they can see what’s right in front of their face.
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
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
RSS