Does an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) involve sovereignty? According to President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, the answer is apparently not a definite “yes.”
On May 29, 2010, in a statement released in response to Japan’s proposed plan to expand its ADIZ westward, which would leave it overlapping parts of Taiwan’s ADIZ, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it found Japan’s decision unacceptable, as it would affect Taiwan’s airspace and national sovereignty.
Fast-forward to Tuesday and the Ma government’s stance has changed noticeably.
In his first public comment on China’s East China Sea ADIZ that includes the disputed Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), which both Taiwan and Japan also claim sovereignty over, Ma said Beijing’s move does not involve “airspace” or “territorial sovereignty.”
In other words, in the eyes of the Ma government, an ADIZ was a matter of national integrity and sovereignty three years ago, but not now.
This striking difference is not only absurd, but baffling for many, who wonder whether it may be yet another example of the cowardly Ma government lacking the backbone to stick up for the nation’s authority and dignity when it comes to dealing with Beijing.
Furthermore, many cannot help but wonder what constitutes treason if a head of state blatantly harbors double standards that appear tantamount to assisting Beijing in violating Taiwan’s sovereignty.
In fact, as long ago as December 2007, then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) sounded a warning over China’s possible move to designate a new ADIZ. In remarks with then-visiting US Representative Eni Faleomavaega, who at the time doubled as the chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment, Chen specifically noted that “we consider China’s plans an attempt to alter the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. They will pose a great threat to peace and stability in the Strait and damage the status quo. We hope the US and Japan will jointly tackle this serious issue.”
Ma is fond of comparing himself with Chen and claims to have more international vision than his predecessor. However, we need to look at how pathetically Ma has failed in the defense of the nation’s sovereignty.
Following China’s declaration of its new ADIZ, Japan aligned itself with the US in condemning the move and refusing to comply with Beijing’s rules for aircraft flying through the zone. South Korea and Australia subsequently expressed their grave concern over the matter, condemning China.
Taiwan, under Ma’s leadership, however, has been relatively quiet, and the government has failed to assert the nation’s dignity.
Not a single word of condemnation nor protest was uttered by the Ma administration, just quiet rhetoric expressing regret.
The high-profile welcome for China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits Chairman Chen Deming (陳德銘) has been in stark contrast. This no doubt creates an impression within the international community that Taiwan is aligning itself with Beijing rather than the democracies of Japan, South Korea and the US.
Ma often claims that tensions across the Strait have been “dramatically reduced” under his presidency, thereby “contributing to regional stability and prosperity.”
However, if this so-called reduction in cross-strait tension is achieved purely through failure on the part of the government to defend Taiwan’s dignity and sovereignty, what good is this fraudulent cross-strait “peace”?
Despite Ma’s trumpeting of the Republic of China’s sovereignty in his speeches, he has wimped out on the international stage.
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
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Sept. 6 finished its annual national congress. However, if Taiwan wants to have a viable opposition party in its democracy, the results were far from satisfying. The KMT again seems to be caught in a time loop, like that one in the 1993 film Groundhog Day. Yet, unlike the protagonist in that film, the KMT seems unable to learn from past experience and change for the better. Instead, it remains locked in its never-ending cycle of repeating the past. To borrow from a different artistic genre, the KMT echoes Pete Seeger’s song Where Have All