President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been busy meeting foreign media in recent days. At the same time he and his administration have also been busy correcting reports following the interviews. Reported misquotes and mistranslations might have been simple mistakes by reporters, but they could also be justified inferences. If the inferences were valid, the government’s corrections show that it has engaged in opportunistic and double-faced tactics, and exposes how it has helped drive the country into a corner.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs last week chided the “over-interpretation” of a Chinese-language report by Deutsche Welle, which was not among the media outlets that interviewed Ma, for “misquoting” the president as saying he aims to learn from the experience of East Germany and West Germany in their “realizing ultimate unification.”
The “unification” spoken about in the report was indeed “of the two Germanys,” as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has clarified and according to the transcript provided by the Presidential Office after the hubbub. Ma extolled the setting up of mutual embassies and called the 1972 agreement between the two Germanys “a good move” because it “went so far as to recognize [the two side’s mutual] territory ... but short of recognition of sovereignty.”
The president further underlined that even though the word “sovereignty” was not used in the agreement, former German “chancellor Willy Brandt “wrote a letter to his East German counterpart, attached to the agreement, saying that whatever was said in the agreement would not affect the eventual unification of the two Germanys.”
Ma called it “a delicate maneuver” and said he has replaced the idea of “one Germany, two states” with “one China, with respective interpretations.”
Deutsche Welle is hardly to be blamed for saying that Ma is learning from Germany’s history of unification, after all, the president praised the agreement and said that eventual unification was not hindered by it.
Ma’s long-standing principle of “one China, with respective interpretations” puzzles the world. If it does not prescribe the eventual unification of “one China,” what does it mean? Plural interpretations do not make for separate “Chinas” — if “one,” as in unity, is all that matters.
It is an “over-interpretation,” the government said, sternly refuting the reports when facing legislators and local reporters. However, how is it an “over-interpretation” when the Chinese Nationalist Party has insisted that the Republic of China’s territories include “the mainland” and, to add to the surreal nature of it, the now-independent Mongolia?
It might not be a big problem for a political party to defend outdated tenets, but being hypocritical about them is. In a democratic country, being pro-unification is certainly tolerated, as the existence of high-profile pro-unification parties shows, but being evasive and to shun questions from the public, knowing the idea is widely rejected, is reason to criticize.
While Taiwanese and various groups are fighting against Chinese aggression and Beijing’s unilateral claim of sovereignty over Taiwan, it is most unfortunate to see the government pushing in exactly the opposite direction, canceling the efforts to remain separate from China.
The administration corrected a report by al-Jazeera, which mistranslated the president’s “ethnic Chinese society” (華人) as “China.”
It might have been a bit hasty for al-Jazeera’s translator to infer that the term could be translated that way, but it was not entirely out of context considering how enthusiastically Ma has been pitching “one China.”
Why the corrections then? The party and the administration know why, and so does the electorate.
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
In late January, Taiwan’s first indigenous submarine, the Hai Kun (海鯤, or Narwhal), completed its first submerged dive, reaching a depth of roughly 50m during trials in the waters off Kaohsiung. By March, it had managed a fifth dive, still well short of the deep-water and endurance tests required before the navy could accept the vessel. The original delivery deadline of November last year passed months ago. CSBC Corp, Taiwan, the lead contractor, now targets June and the Ministry of National Defense is levying daily penalties for every day the submarine remains unfinished. The Hai Kun was supposed to be
Most schoolchildren learn that the circumference of the Earth is about 40,000km. They do not learn that the global economy depends on just 160 of those kilometers. Blocking two narrow waterways — the Strait of Hormuz and the Taiwan Strait — could send the economy back in time, if not to the Stone Age that US President Donald Trump has been threatening to bomb Iran back to, then at least to the mid-20th century, before the Rolling Stones first hit the airwaves. Over the past month and a half, Iran has turned the Strait of Hormuz, which is about 39km wide at
There is a peculiar kind of political theater unfolding in East Asia — one that would be laughable if its consequences were not so dangerous. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) on April 12 returned from Beijing, where she met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and spoke earnestly about preserving “peace” and maintaining the “status quo.” It is a position that sounds responsible, even prudent. It is also a fiction. Taiwan is, by any honest definition, an independent country. It governs itself, defends itself, elects its leaders, and functions as a free and sovereign democracy. Independence is not a
RSS