For once, Taiwan has behaved like an independent country in its response to the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) dispute, and yet critics argue that by doing so the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is actually doing Beijing’s work.
The irony is hard to miss, but this is exactly what some supporters of Taiwanese independence have been saying. Even though Taipei’s recent actions over the islets may have gone against the wishes of its benefactor in Washington, one cannot advocate for Taiwanese independence only to attack the government when it acts to protect its perceived interests, even if one disagrees with the policy.
Unfortunately, the groups in question suffer from a bad case of “groupthink” and remain fixated on an idea — the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) as irremediably bad — while conveniently discarding whatever information does not fit their preconceptions.
There is a body of evidence, some of it reported in the media and some garnered through interaction with the various protagonists involved in the dispute, that clearly shows that the Ma administration is neither doing Beijing’s work nor siding with it against Tokyo. Senior administration officials from the foreign affairs and defense ministries, as well as the coast guard, have denied the possibility of such cooperation on several occasions.
As if that were not enough, senior and influential members of the KMT have pointed out, on the record and in no uncertain terms, that they will have nothing to do with the tiny minority of people who support unification or a cross-strait alliance against Japan.
The main participants — the fishermen — have also made it clear that their livelihood, not politics, is behind their protests. Several of them told this much to local and foreign reporters who bothered to ask.
Furthermore, if one can be bothered to look it up, both KMT and Democratic Progressive Party officials at the local level have expressed their support for the fishermen’s actions, also emphasizing that fishing rights, not mindless nationalism nor a desire to work with Beijing, was what motivated them to take action.
Despite what Ma’s critics might think, his government is not a monolithic entity, so even if he uses the language of nationalism, what drives policy is actually far more complex.
However, all this information has failed to disabuse a small group of advocates of the notion that Ma is engaged in some dark conspiracy with his “political masters” in Beijing. Those people also conveniently ignore the 2005 high-profile visit to Pengjia Islet (彭佳嶼) by then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), during which he observed the Diaoyutais through a pair of binoculars to symbolize Taiwan’s claims and unveiled a “bulwark of maritime territory” stone tablet.
Were those people only passive observers, their lack of understanding of this complex situation would be of little consequence, but that is not the case — some of them work for organizations that have a modicum of influence on Capitol Hill and their picture does not resonate with reality.
Feeding inaccurate information to representatives will not help Taiwan or the independence movement. In fact, their perspective on the Diaoyutais dispute, and their portrayal of Ma as a Beijing pawn, does Taiwan a major disservice by making it likelier that US officials will recommend abandoning its ally. As one of the three claimants, Taiwan has a right to exercise its sovereignty, even if the US does not like it.
An even greater irony, of course, is that their argument regurgitates Chinese propaganda on the dispute, which seeks to create the illusion that Taiwan and China are united in the “defense” of the islets.
If there is one thing that Taiwan independence supporters should have learned over the years it is that they should not believe Chinese propaganda, and yet they seem to give credence to propagandists over the Taiwanese officials from an elected government.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military
RSS