On Wednesday last week, the Washington Post published a letter by former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), in which he said that President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) “takes a confrontational approach by not recognizing the 1992 consensus between Taipei and Beijing, namely ‘one China, respective interpretations’ ... harming Taiwan’s economy and diplomatic relations.”
“Given the fierce competition between the United States and mainland China lately, the people of Taiwan are increasingly worried that Taiwan may be used as a bargaining chip in the process,” Ma wrote.
“Taiwan’s detente with mainland China during my administration is clearly in the US interest,” he added.
On the same day, the newspaper published another letter by Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the US Deputy Representative Louis M. Huang.
Huang said that “China’s ambitions and intentions do not involve only Taiwan,” but also pose threats to the entire Asia-Pacific region’s stability, showing that the “global engagement and peaceful transformation policy toward China has proved to be a failure.”
Accordingly, Huang expressed the hope that “like-minded countries will stand up together to an authoritarian regime bullying its neighbors and its own people.”
After all, China’s target “may be Taiwan or Xinjiang today, but who will it be tomorrow?” he wrote.
Comparing the two letters, one cannot help but wonder: How could Ma — a former president, who repeatedly receiving a low approval rating during his term in office — justify himself as being a candid representative of “the people of Taiwan” and point the finger at the incumbent Taiwanese president through a foreign media outlet?
Second, in a speech delivered on Jan. 2 to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the “Message to Compatriots in Taiwan,” Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) clearly said that the so-called “1992 consensus” means that “both sides of the Strait belong to one China and will work jointly to seek national unification on the ‘one China’ principle.”
On March 2, Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Yang (汪洋) did not even mention the “1992 consensus” in his report at the annual conference.
Instead, he stressed China’s “firm opposition to Taiwan independence” and Beijing’s determination to facilitate unification.
In other words, Ma’s prolonged obsession with “the 1992 consensus,” as if he still had the option of having “different interpretations,” is simply delusional.
Third, the basic tone of Ma’s opinion is: Not surrendering to Beijing’s conditions is tantamount to taking a confrontational approach, which will bring harm to Taiwan.
How can Ma’s logic, which places the blame on the victim, help Taiwan gain more international support? The better way would be calling for empathy from Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, India and other nations, urging them to support Taiwan and collaborate to counter Chinese bullying.
How about reminding the international community that temporary leniency is likely to lead to a greater evil eventually devouring countries of shared interests?
Interestingly, the Washington Post decided to publish both Ma and Huang’s letters on the same day in parallel, showing a balanced presentation.
While one cannot fathom the real reason behind the choice — whether it was purely coincidental or the newspaper did not want to buy into Ma’s perspective — Taiwanese media outlets in comparison showed an apparent lack of professionalism by largely overlooking Huang’s letter.
Faced with the imminent threat from China, Taiwan does not have much time to consolidate its people. Meanwhile, disingenuous arguments, as Ma’s letter shows, only foster the enemy from within.
Huang Wei-ping is a former think tank researcher.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
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.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US