While visiting the US, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has expressed his opinions on cross-strait policy, and his views deserve public attention and discussion.
First, Ma said that from the perspective of international law, the Republic of China (ROC) is an independent, sovereign state and has been so since its founding in 1912. The name of this state is, however, the ROC, not Taiwan. He unambiguously said that the "one China" is the ROC, and that since the ROC is already independent, it is unnecessary to declare independence a second time.
Second, Ma proposed the so-called "Five Do's" (五要) during his speech, "A vision for peace and prosperity," at Harvard University. These "Five Do's" are: Resume cross-strait dialogue based on the "1992 consensus," sign a peace agreement and build a mechanism for mutual military trust, establish a joint market across the Taiwan Strait, increase Taiwan's participation in the international community and strengthen cultural and educational exchanges.
While these ideas have not yet been expanded into a complete discourse, they can be seen as the guidelines for Ma's presidential election platform in 2008 and offer a glimpse into the basic framework of his national identification and cross-strait policies.
Ma's stance on national identification does not appear to be particularly sophisticated, but rather plain, common and groundless. Take, for example, his claim that "one China" means the ROC, and that the ROC is already an independent and sovereign state. It is but a mere repackaging of former president Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) dictum on the ROC's legitimacy and former president Chiang Ching-kuo's (蔣經國) dictum on maintaining the "status quo."
By putting these views together, Ma has successfully traced the ROC's legitimacy back to 1912 to bring greater legitimacy to the claim to represent China. However, Taiwan was a Japanese colony at that time and not a part of ROC territory. When World War II ended, the Allies ordered the Generalissimo to accept Japan's surrender in Taiwan. Taiwan was subsequently occupied by Chiang's troops and turned into "a springboard for the restoration and liberation of mainland China," as the whole ROC territory fell into Communist hands.
One may very well ask Ma whether the ROC -- since the body or the territory of the ROC is already gone and it exists on Taiwan only in name -- can be called an independent sovereign state? In reality, the existence of the country called the ROC on Taiwan is a result of unfortunate historical distortions. If we were to take the ROC to be the "one China," we will be deceiving ourselves.
Moreover, Ma has been vacillating in his China policy, swinging with the wind of opportunism and lacking a clear and firm core value. China has repeatedly bullied Taiwan in cross-strait interactions. But when Ma talked about his vision for peace and prosperity at Harvard, he had harsh words only for President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) denial of the "1992 consensus," the "one country on each side" dictum, the controversial referendum tied to the presidential election in 2004, as well as the cessation of the functions of the National Unification Council and guidelines. Ma dared not condemn China's deployment of ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan.
Since his every word and action receives a lot of international attention, Ma's attack on Chen, rather than Beijing, may lead the international community into thinking that Taiwan is a troublemaker, while China is the amicable party.
Why Ma severely criticizes the local regime and tolerates Chinese brutality is confounding, to say the least. Enduring Chinese disgrace and humiliation to survive and denying Taiwanese their right to self-determination seem to be what Ma is preaching. This, plus his continuous boycott of the arms procurement bill, makes his "Five Do's" nothing but empty talk. If he really comes to power someday, he will inevitably be manipulated by Beijing.
Ma's US trip is undoubtedly a campaign trip that he is deploying to move from Taipei onto the international stage. If he were thinking of what is best for Taiwan, Ma -- with his fluent command of English and wealth of knowledge -- would be a good promoter of Taiwan, giving voice to the wishes of the Taiwanese.
Unfortunately, Ma's love for China outweighs his feelings for Taiwan. He has thus stooped to launching heavy attacks against Chen's administration during his visit to the US. He is also upholding the banner of an ROC which exists in name only, while covering the fact of Taiwan's existence. It is a great tragedy that he is unable to fly the colors of Taiwan.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS