Taiwan on life support
When President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was re-elected, many Taiwanese were concerned it could be the last democratic election in Taiwan.
It seemed from the start that Ma was determined to make Taiwan commit national suicide by insisting that the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) beloved “one China” principle was the only acceptable legal status for Taiwan.
For five years, Ma has seemed content to view Taiwan as a mere pimple on the totalitarian butt of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
In most democratic societies the people get (or in some cases deserve) what they vote for, so long as elections are free and fair. In this way, Taiwan’s populace voted for “euthanizing” Taiwan when it elected Ma a second time.
Time will tell if Ma can accomplish his party’s dream of killing Taiwan and resurrecting the Republic of China as some kind of muddled abomination made up of the worst of the PRC and Taiwan.
Taipei Times reporter Chris Wang’s recent article discussed a forum held by Taiwan Thinktank (“Ma in ‘international legal suicide,’” June 3, page 3). The piece says it is presumptuous for Taiwanese to expect the rest of the world to understand Taiwan is independent when the nation’s democratically elected president firmly supports the “one China” principle, with his head planted up the hindquarters of the Chinese Communist Party.
However, if a million Taiwanese get on the streets to show their support for the nation’s democracy, the international community will sit up and take notice.
A fair number of experts seem to think that as long as Taiwan remains schizophrenic in its relationship with China, with some supporting a free Taiwan and others supporting a China-dominated Taiwan, no foreign government will come to Taiwan’s aid. China will continue to argue any issues between it and Taiwan are “domestic issues,” since Taiwan’s government essentially agrees.
Taiwan is perhaps on life support now, with KMT doctors huddled round its bed ready to call the patient dead, and an eager Ma ready to give consent to pull the plug.
The international community might find a way to thwart the efforts of China and the KMT to kill Taiwan, but there is very little hope such support would come from the decidedly weak administration of US President Barack Obama.
In five years, this administration has said almost nothing about Taiwan, despite Obama’s supposed pivot toward Asia.
Support will have to continue to come from the US Congress, which has traditionally been strident about supporting Taiwan and opposing the PRC.
Taiwan continues to be the key geographical impediment to the PRC’s hegemonic conquest of the Pacific.
While the US Department of State under this weak president and secretary of state may hanker for a “peace” of some kind between Taiwan and the PRC, the surrendering Ma will not satisfy them.
Ma seems to value everything counter to the best interests of those interested in democracy and those in the Pacific region anxious to maintain freedom from the PRC’s threats and blackmail. This would also apply to the US.
Declaring Taiwan’s independence is not necessary, as Taiwan is already independent.
What is necessary is guaranteeing the survival of Taiwan.
This means it is essential that Taiwanese make it clear to the international community that the majority of the population does not wish Taiwan to be part of China, nor do they wish to go to war with China.
Rather they wish to continue to survive until the PRC perishes from the weight of its own totalitarian cruelty and malice.
This voice of Taiwanese taking to the streets could serve as a strong counterweight to the government’s one-sided cheering for the PRC and make the world recognize that few in Taiwan yearn to be part of totalitarian China.
Los Angeles, California
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new