Has President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) been confirmed to have some kind of psychosis? No. Then the only alternative is to conclude that his delusional ramblings have some actual purpose.
The latest evidence of this was a slip of the tongue when he used the term “one country, two systems” when talking about the “one China” principle in his Nov. 7 meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), as well as him referring to the meeting as “another form of peace agreement.”
He did not misspeak. This was not the verbal equivalent of a typo. He is a believer in “one China” and he is very good at making things up.
Former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) came up with the idea of “one country, two systems.” Nobody is disputing that there are two systems, it is just that Taiwanese do not accept the bit about “one country.”
However, Ma has confirmed the so-called “1992 consensus,” and accepted the idea of “one China,” thereby substantiating “one China, two systems.”
Nevertheless, he is still attempting to change his presentation of the meeting with Xi from one of “building bridges” to “another form of peace agreement.”
His persistent touting of his own success in “bridge-building” is strongly reminiscent of former US president Richard Nixon’s harping about his “ice-breaking” visit to China in 1972. That was when Nixon got down on one knee and accepted China’s conditions.
Ma’s meeting with Xi bears strong resemblance to the time former US president Franklin Roosevelt had Patrick Hurley, his personal envoy to former Republic of China (ROC) president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), accompany former Chinese leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東) to Chongqing in 1945 for a meeting with Chiang, fearful that Chiang would throttle Mao.
Ever since he took power in 2008, hoping to intimidate ordinary Taiwanese and to embellish his own achievements, Ma has been repeating over and over, like a senile old man, how he has transformed the Taiwan Strait into a peaceful highway from the “killing fields” of the past.
Yes, he used the Chinese phrase used as the translation of the title of the movie The Killing Fields, which depicted the locations in Cambodia where hundreds of thousands were slaughtered and left to rot by the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge had taken a leaf out of Mao’s playbook on how to “recreate” and cleanse society.
Yes, the Taiwan Strait has seen opposition and tensions over the years, but what is this talk of it being like the killing fields? The two artillery bombardments of Kinmen do not really count, as they were technically not across the Taiwan Strait, but rather in what was incontrovertibly Chinese territory.
That Taiwan has a democracy and that there is no war across the Taiwan Strait are thanks to the diplomatic intervention and military power of the US, which had nothing to do with Ma allowing Taiwan to be “peacefully annexed.”
Ma only knows how to fabricate or exaggerate the seriousness of past events or situations and inflate his own achievements, while trying to conceal the price that has to be paid.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS