In an interview with Bloomberg last Thursday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
While Ma's comments are an improvement over his previously naive remark that unification is the KMT's eventual goal and his suggestion of putting aside long-term concerns to focus on the short and mid-term peaceful development of cross-strait relations, they still show a distinct lack of Taiwanese consciousness. His words are designed to put Taiwan right into China's "united front" trap and are a betrayal of public expectations.
Ma's proposed peace agreement can be likened to a man forcing a woman to marry him with the promise that he would not beat her if she agrees.
There are several major flaws in Ma's plan.
First, it is a denial of Taiwan's sovereignty. Past surveys have shown that the Taiwanese think Taiwan is independent, and that the country's official title is the Republic of China. There is a major consensus on this issue among most Taiwanese and the different political parties. But since Ma's peace agreement proposes to exchange Taiwan's independence for China's promise not to use violence, it is based on the supposition that Taiwan is not a sovereign and independent nation. If the winner of the 2008 presidential election denies that Taiwan is an independent country, how would he or she be any different from the leaders of Hong Kong and Macau?
Second, the agreement would strangle Taiwan's future. Ma said that the peace agreement would not include a provision for eventual unification, that the decision should be left to Taiwan's 23 million people and that unification could only occur after China had developed freedom, democracy and prosperity. But inking a "one China" consensus would put Taiwan on a one-way road to unification, severely limiting the country's future options -- just as the Sino-British Joint Declaration did for Hong Kong in 1984.
Third, the conditions for a cross-strait peace agreement are unequal. Peace and non-violence are the basic principles underlying the international community's solution to conflict. If Taipei were to sacrifice future possibilities in exchange for Beijing's promise not to attack the country in the short or medium term, Taiwan would be walking straight into China's trap without getting anything in return.
Fourth, a cross-strait peace agreement could become an excuse for China to take military action against Taiwan. Such an agreement would guarantee that the cross-strait status quo is maintained for a period of time. But if Taiwan refuses to accept China's demand for unification after the expiration of the agreement, Beijing could attack Taiwan by claiming that it has declared independence or that the preconditions for unification no longer exist.
Ma's peace proposal is nothing new. The idea of such an agreement was first raised during former US president Bill Clinton's administration when China expert Kenneth Lieberthal proposed an agreement for the mid term. The US' "track two" program to facilitate diplomacy between China and Taiwan led to a substantial amount of discussion, but Taiwan did not agree to the talks because of the potential problems it would cause. Even the US did not push for the signing of such an accord.
By bringing up the same old issue again, Ma has only highlighted the blind spots in the KMT's cross-strait policy, along with his own naivete.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95
RSS