TSU sues Ma over China ‘inaction’

By Rich Chang  /  Staff reporter

Sat, Nov 30, 2013 - Page 1

The Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) yesterday filed charges against President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), alleging that his “inaction” after China claimed a broad air defense identification zone in the East China Sea has compromised national security.

TSU Chairman Huang Kun-huei (黃昆輝) and party officials brought the charges to the Taiwan High Prosecutors’ Office, accusing Ma of the crime of abetting “foreign aggression.”

Huang argued that the Ma administration’s lack of response to China’s air zone demarcation, which encompasses waters and islets claimed by Taiwan, indicates a lack of loyalty on Ma’s part.

He contrasted the government’s muted response with strong protests and bold actions by the US, Japan and South Korea.

Ma’s attitude has led to the international misconception that Taiwan is part of China, and not a sovereign state, Huang said.

He added that Ma’s diplomatic strategy of working with China to counter the Japan-US alliance was a big mistake.

Following China’s sudden proclamation of the air defense zone, Ma said that the establishment of the zone does not affect Taiwan as it is not related to either territorial sovereignty or air space rights.

Yesterday’s suit is not the first time Huang has tried to take Ma to court.

In October 2011, he filed charges of treason against Ma and then-secretary-general of the National Security Council Su Chi (蘇起), arguing that they had fabricated the so-called “1992 consensus” and thereby endangered national security.

Prosecutors responded to that case only last month, saying there was no need for further investigation because the charges were “not related to criminal [activity].”

Huang claimed prosecutors had intentionally put off dealing with the case.

The “1992 consensus” refers to a supposed understanding reached between Taiwanese and Chinese representatives in 1992, under which both sides claim to have acknowledged that there was “one China,” with each side having its own interpretation of what “one China” means.

The Democratic Progressive Party insists that the “1992 consensus” does not exist.