On May 11, the Wall Street Journal published an extensive interview with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), in which Ma defended the rapprochement he has forged with China, saying that the closer ties have boosted Taiwan’s economy and security, and should not be tampered with by his successor.
The problem with Ma’s account is that his policies have severely undermined Taiwan’s sovereignty, democracy, security and international space. Like the fictional Peter Pan in J.M. Barrie’s tale, Ma is putting a glossy glow over events and development, while his policies have pushed Taiwan into the unwelcome economic embrace of a repressive China.
In the very beginning of the interview, Ma contends that “[The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT)] election defeat last year [in the Nov. 29 municipal elections] was not related to our mainland policy.”
Ma must not have read the major international publications at the time: The Wall Street Journal concluded: “Taiwanese Electoral Rebuke, A landslide verdict against growing dependence on China,” while CNN headlined: “Taiwan’s ‘black Saturday’ election: A rebuke to China.”
The problem with Ma’s policies toward China is that they have been conducted under a “one China” premise that considers Taiwan to be part of “China,” and just about everyone around the world considers the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to be “China.”
Ma’s definition of “China” as the old “Republic of China” lost traction way back in the 1960s and must be relegated to Never Never Land.
While Ma’s fictionalism might have given the international community the false idea that cross-strait relations are easing, the reality is that the PRC’s designs to incorporate Taiwan are now colliding with the desire of the great majority of Taiwanese to remain a free and democratic nation that is accepted by the international community as a full and equal member.
Ma’s make-believe also includes his assertion that trade agreements with China are a necessary precursor to trade agreements with other nations, in particular that the proposed cross-strait service trade agreement with China — which was derailed by last year’s Sunflower movement — will boost Taiwan’s chances of joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Nothing is further from the truth: Taiwan needs to apply on its own strength and its own merits. It needs to work hard to push through structural economic reforms so it meets the high standards of the TPP. China is not even in the TPP and it would be outrageous if it could veto the accession of other states.
So, instead of acquiescing in, or even abetting, Taiwan’s growing dependence on China, Ma — as president of the nation — should have strengthened Taiwan’s self-reliance. It is a proud, free and democratic nation that has been pushed into diplomatic isolation by the grandiose, but short-sighted, “one China” fictions of the KMT of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石).
The developments after Taiwan’s momentous transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s show that Taiwanese want to live in peace in a nation they can call their own. Yes, they want a “status quo,” but one defined by the democracy and freedom they presently enjoy.
They want one in which they elect their own president and government, and where the government is responsive to its citizens. Not a nebulous “status quo” in which they are considered second-class international citizens, or where their peace and stability is determined by the whims of rulers in Beijing.
Mark Kao is president of the Washington-based Formosan Association for Public Affairs.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past