One can guess that election time is around the corner when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) politicians start to warn that Taiwan could risk losing its diplomatic allies if the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) becomes the governing party.
Such was the case in the lead-up to the 2008 presidential election, when then-KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) pledged to adopt “flexible diplomacy” to end the nation’s diplomatic isolation and what he termed “pointless ‘scorched-earth diplomacy’ employed by the DPP,” which he described as “amateurish, capricious, dogmatic and based on brinkmanship.”
Similar rhetoric was sounded during Ma’s re-election campaign for the 2012 presidential election as he trumpeted his foreign policy of “modus vivendi” having promoted cross-strait peace and Beijing not stealing Taiwan’s diplomatic allies.
In a case of deja vu, earlier this week, Presidential Office spokesperson Charles Chen (陳以信) warned against the resurgence of diplomatic war with China, saying that a resumption of the DPP’s “scorched-earth diplomacy” would pose “an enormous risk to the ties across the Taiwan Strait and to our international relations and seriously undermine the peace and prosperity that has developed in the Taiwan Strait over the past seven-and-a-half years.”
Echoing Chen’s remarks, KMT Legislator Alex Tsai (蔡正元) — worrying that a victory for DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in next month’s presidential election could destabilize cross-strait ties — on Monday claimed that 18 of Taiwan’s 22 diplomatic allies have been lining up outside Beijing’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to establish diplomatic ties
Stepping up the rhetoric, Ma on Tuesday said that Taiwan lost six diplomatic allies under the previous DPP administration, whereas he consolidated diplomatic ties with allies since taking office in 2008, with the exception of losing the Gambia to China in 2013.
However, one has to ask: Has China really dropped its aggression and malice toward Taiwan while the KMT has been the governing party?
The answer is obvious: No.
The truth is that Ma’s so-called “cross-strait peace” is superficial, because Beijing has never renounced the use of force to achieve its goal of annexing Taiwan.
China’s enacting of the “Anti-Secession” Law shows nothing but malice and threatens peace.
China’s intentions are evidenced by the more than 1,600 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan along its eastern seaboard.
China’s ill intentions are made obvious by footage of its war games that showed drills featuring People’s Liberation Army troops maneuvering toward a five-story building with a tower resembling Taiwan’s Presidential Office Building.
In other words, what Ma has been touting as his diplomatic achievements are really more to Beijing’s credit than his.
No saber-rattling remarks have been necessary from China because the KMT has seemingly taken it upon itself to work on Beijing’s behalf, intimidating Taiwanese with talk, such as Alex Tsai’s.
Playing the “resurgence-of-diplomatic-war-with-China card” to frighten the public might have worked for the KMT before, but do Ma and Alex Tsai really take Taiwanese for fools and think they would fall for the same tricks again?
Rather than engaging in its old habit of intimidating people, the KMT would be well advised to put its resources toward the presentation of a concrete platform to convince voters that it deserves another four years in the Presidential Office.
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
RSS