FAPA opposes Xi meeting
The Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) — a Taiwanese-American grassroots organization based in Washington — wants to express its deep concern about the sudden announcement that Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) are scheduled to meet in Singapore [today].
That the plans for the meeting were kept under wraps until the last minute is symptomatic of the undemocratic “black box” approach the Ma government has been following for years. The lack of transparency in governance was already evident when the Ma administration tried to push through the ill-fated service trade agreement in March last year and the changes in history textbooks earlier this year. In both cases, the matters led to large-scale protests.
The short notice for the meeting also flies in the face of the “no surprises” approach President Ma promised — in particular vis-a-vis the US — when conducting policy on cross-strait issues: His announcement on Nov. 7 that he would meet Xi in Singapore is a big surprise.
What are the main drivers prompting this move by Ma?
First, he is trying to salvage his legacy. As his standing in the polls is way down, he feels he needs to do something drastic to polish his image. He is generally considered a down-and-out, has-been politician. Very few people outside his own little circle believe in him anymore.
Second, he is trying to turn the tide in the Jan. 16 presidential election, where the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), with its presidential candidate, Eric Chu (朱立倫), is still way behind Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in the opinion polls.
Chu’s manipulation of the ouster of the KMT’s previous candidate, Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), did not earn him much credit and his ratings have stayed at around the same level as Hung’s.
Third, he wants to pin Tsai down on the cross-strait issue and restrict her future options by agreeing with Xi that cross-strait “stability” cannot be guaranteed unless she embraces the so-called “1992 consensus.”
Many see the “1992 consensus” as a slippery slope toward unification. They want to keep all options open for the nation, and want Taiwanese to decide their future openly and freely.
In FAPA’s view, “peace and stability” is only artificial, as it is predicated on the fact that Ma has given China the impression that Taiwan is inexorably drifting in its direction. As is clear from opinion polls that is simply not the case: Taiwanese prefer democracy and freedom.
FAPA believes that:
First, the timing and the manner this meeting came about is not conducive to a balanced and responsible debate on future relations with China. With his approach, Ma is attempting to pre-empt a DPP government from exploring directions that would provide better guarantees for Taiwan’s future as a free and democratic nation.
Second, it is inappropriate for a lame-duck president to engage in such a meeting only two months before presidential and legislative elections. There is obviously no consensus in the nation on how to move forward on cross-strait relations and Ma does not have any mandate. On the contrary, his pro-China policies have been soundly rejected in both last year’s nine-in-one elections and in recent opinion polls.
Third, a truly fruitful and productive meeting between leaders from the two sides can only be held in due time, after the nation has reached a consensus on future cross-strait relations in a transparent and open process.
Formosan Association for Public Affairs
Washington
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs