Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) came out with the latest in a long line of twisted policy ideas on Sunday during a visit to Taipei Port.
If one is to believe Ma, then the nation can further relax cross-strait restrictions, allow most of its high-tech and manufacturing operations to relocate to China and somehow increase the amount of container ships leaving the nation's ports.
As always with Ma, there was no substance to go with the sound bite.
But most startling of all is that, time and again, Ma is allowed to come out with such obviously contradictory statements without anybody challenging him.
Just last week, for example, he panned the government for its "rigid dogmatism" on foreign policy and for "inflexibly using the name Taiwan" to apply for WHO and UN membership — organizations that require full statehood as a condition for entry.
Ma's response: Taiwan should use its economic strength to apply for membership of the IMF and World Bank, also organizations that require full statehood.
His suggestion comes at a time when China's relentless pressure means Taiwan is having trouble just staying in organizations as obscure as the World Organization for Animal Health.
No doubt Ma believes that applying for membership to international bodies using the name "Republic of China" (ROC) — while claiming that the ROC is the "real" China, as he did in the US last year — is altogether more viable and less “rigid.”
Ma also recently reiterated his wishy-washy foreign policy and diplomacy ideas when he said he would demand China remove missiles targeting the nation before Taipei and Beijing could resume negotiations or reach a peace accord, adding that Taiwan and China should regard “freedom” and “democracy” as foundation stones for cross-strait dialogue.
As if the bullies in Beijing — who famously turned their guns on their own citizens just 18 years ago — are really going to bow to the demands of a nation that cannot even keep its own military arsenal up to date.
In case Ma wasn’t aware, “freedom” and “democracy” are words that don’t hold much currency in Zhongnanhai.
With demands like that on the table, don’t expect substantial cross-strait dialogue to resume anytime soon should he become president. If Ma sticks to his guns, then the so-called “peace accord” that is central to his cross-strait policy platform would appear to be dead in the water.
Ma left for India and Singapore yesterday, no doubt to once again espouse his paradoxical policy platforms on the international stage — where he knows they will not receive any serious scrutiny.
While in Singapore he will probably laud its government for turning the city-state into an economic success, while overlooking the authoritarian system it used to obtain its achievements, as he did in advance of his visit in an interview with the Straits Times last week. But then, no one should be surprised by a KMT figure extolling the virtues of authoritarianism.
It’s about time his opponents started taking Ma to task over these absurd declarations, because as we saw with his ridiculous dance on “independence being an option” and on the BBC’s Hardtalk last year, Ma’s poise is shielding him from accountability.
The public seem to have trouble penetrating the reflective veneer so carefully created by Ma’s well-crafted photo ops and sanitized interviews.
But if they really tried to look behind the Ma facade, they would discover the biggest contradiction of all: Ma is a “leader” with very few leadership qualities at all.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS