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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS