President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) historic meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore on Saturday will add to Ma’s eventual legacy as the first Taiwanese leader to meet with his Chinese counterpart. However, this is not expected to overshadow the position of great weakness from which Ma proceeded in this initiative.
Ma’s presidency has been marred by his own inability to strengthen his Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). He leaves a party almost certain to cede the Presidential Office to Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), and quite possibly allow the pan-green camp to command a majority in the Legislative Yuan for the first time in history.
I have a lot of respect for KMT presidential candidate Eric Chu (朱立倫), who is a capable politician. However, even he is most unlikely to change this outcome, given the broad public dissatisfaction over the KMT’s rule, which is Ma’s real legacy.
Xi might win a Pyrrhic victory, but I do not sense that his popularity among Taiwanese will increase that much. This is particularly so because he was unwilling to give Ma much at all, according to press reports coming out of Singapore.
If Xi had offered a concrete proposal to reduce military deployments, particularly the forest of forward-deployed missiles across the Taiwan Strait, that would have been a real step forward. His disingenuous claim that these missiles are not aimed at Taiwan is simply laughable.
Nor did he give any ground on Taiwan’s international space, even though Ma’s very modest request was for Taiwanese non-governmental organizations’ representatives to be allowed to participate in functional organizations abroad.
Most notably, Xi did not demonstrate any sign of respect for those on Taiwan who are justifiably proud of their accomplishments as the first truly democratic governance in greater China’s long history.
I am not surprised, given the Chinese Communist Party’s contempt for democratic processes. The truth is that they are deeply afraid of this concept, and the existential threat it poses to their own authoritarian system.
Xi should by now recognize that he does not get to choose his interlocutor with the Taiwanese. That has been the prerogative of Taiwan’s electorate now for nearly 20 years.
By all polling measures, Tsai will be the next president of Taiwan. She is smart and experienced, and as an economist by training, knows the stakes in managing cross-strait ties effectively.
The US official statement welcomes the Ma-Xi meeting. Washington officials will get their chance to meet Chu soon, and might again seek to tip their hand afterward, as was done four years ago, when they questioned Tsai’s candidacy. It will not be enough this time.
More fundamentally, the US’ support for Taiwan has shown the ability to work with whoever is democratically elected, knowing that our Taiwanese friends will pay close attention to our overarching regional priorities.
As a long-time friend and student of Taiwan, I have great confidence that Taiwan and its remarkable people can and will thrive and survive in their tough neighborhood.
Their amazing economic record, coupled with their pioneering success in becoming the first Chinese entity to usher in democratic rule, ensures their continuing success. China’s rulers would do well to learn from the island and its intrepid citizenry.
Stephen Young was director of the American Institute in Taiwan from 2006 to 2009 and served as US ambassador to Kyrgyzstan and consul general in Hong Kong. He is a visiting professor at Wesleyan University.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would