To the public, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) “diplomatic truce” is all about showing China too much goodwill and offering too many compromises. The government is voluntarily restricting its freedom of movement without getting anything in return. This looks more like capitulation than a truce.
The advantage of Taiwan and China not pursuing each other’s diplomatic allies is that a lot of resources are saved, but it doesn’t mean that both sides gain equal benefits, since they are far from equal in terms of leverage. The loss of a few small diplomatic allies would not cost China much sleep, but for Taiwan, its tiny band of allies underpins its claims to statehood under international law. If Taiwan stops trying to develop diplomatic relationships, China will have a lot of room, while Taiwan will be moving one step closer to the edge.
Diplomacy is supposed to protect and promote Taiwan’s existence and dignity. Taiwan cannot afford to expose its national interests to so much risk or to try to measure the value of its sovereignty. Some things shouldn’t be sold because they are as valuable as life itself. There should never be the slightest hint at the possibility that Taiwan has tried to sell or exchange its sovereignty or even worse, give it away for free.
Sovereignty must not be a bargaining chip because that would put Taiwan on the road to extinction. Without the moral courage to insist on this point, even our self-respect will vanish. A country willing to use its sovereignty as a bargaining chip will not win the respect of its opponent, nor will it gain international support.
Taiwan’s effort to join the UN has also weakened noticeably, and it now seems to be a perfunctory matter. It was extremely disappointing to see both the Presidential Office and the Cabinet defend the oppressive comments by Chinese Ambassador to the UN Wang Guangya (王光亞) regarding Taiwan’s UN hopes, rather than showing some moral fiber and sticking to their position. China continues to use its carrot and stick approach, but all Taiwan has is a weak defense. Seeing this cowardly reaction, why should Beijing be bothered with anything Taiwan has to say? If Taiwan’s leaders are unwilling to speak up for the nation, its diplomatic allies are certain to stop speaking up on Taiwan’s behalf, too.
If both Taiwan and China want a cross-strait diplomatic truce, it is only right that the stronger party make some goodwill gestures first. Why should the weaker party make all the compromises? Since Taiwan is the underdog, it must act with utmost caution. The seesaw diplomatic battle over recognition may have come to a temporary halt, but Taiwan cannot give up its diplomatic efforts before having achieved some concrete results — that would be both dangerous and stupid.
The Ma administration is afraid of offending China and even more afraid of criticizing Beijing because any of its political achievements seem to be utterly dependent on Chinese cooperation. What’s worse, top decision makers seem to lack both idealism and theoretical grounding. Because they also are completely disconnected from reality, they appear weak and cowardly on one hand, and to be acting unilaterally on the other. Surrendering national sovereignty without getting anything in return and calling it “a show of goodwill” will only lead to the destruction of the nation.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS