Well, the fuss seems to be over. On Saturday, The Associated Press (AP) issued a dispatch that fell short of a full-fledged correction for what the Presidential Office felt were errors in an interview with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) published earlier in the week.
Ma raised eyebrows on Wednesday when he held an impromptu press conference at Taipei Songshan Airport saying that he was misquoted on the existence of a specific timeline for political talks with China. The Government Information Office (GIO) released Chinese and English transcripts of the interview on Thursday, demanding an investigation into the “causes of distortions” if corrections were not made. On Saturday, the GIO issued a statement saying it was satisfied with the AP’s response and that the matter should be ended.
Indeed it should be ended — except perhaps to ask what caused the uproar in the first place. Reading the English transcript, AP’s article and its eventual “clarification,” it is hard to say what all the excitement was about. While some questioned whether the president should conduct interviews in English with foreign media, the transcript indicates that Ma handled himself well and he said nothing he has not said before concerning talks with China. AP did not distort the president’s comments, except perhaps to dwell a little too much on Ma’s intentions for a second term; but even here, the story’s emphasis was squarely on future economic and political circumstances, together with the will of the Taiwanese electorate at that time.
It is hard not to conclude that the entire issue was caused by Ma, or someone on his staff, reading the AP story and panicking. Why would the administration be so jumpy about the notion of political talks? There is an election next month, of course, and another in 2012, and with races tight and Ma’s own popularity soft, any suggestion that he is being overly cavalier in his dealings with Beijing could play out badly for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). It may even hamstring economic negotiations, which are still ongoing in key areas.
Clearly the problem lies deeper. While the economic benefits of signing trade deals with China help mask the political conditions attached, these strings cannot be avoided forever, even as Ma does his best to downplay the risk. After all, “political talks” is merely a euphemism for a more threatening term, political negotiations, which raises specters of lost sovereignty and annexation by a country with serious human rights issues.
However, several points can be made in defense of negotiations, despite the fears they are bound to engender. One is that as comforting as it seems, maintaining the “status quo” across the Taiwan Strait is maintaining a state of de facto war with China and as such is unsustainable. Another is that while unification may be its eventual outcome, negotiating will involve a series of specific, cumulative political agreements aimed at establishing tangible guarantees, military and political, of cross-strait security, which over time would transform relations across the Taiwan Strait, potentially making unification less frightening or even unnecessary.
Yet perhaps the best thing about political dialogue with China stems from the recent controversy, which, if nothing else, reveals just how vulnerable the KMT is on the issue. At a time when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must demonstrate political viability, especially for national elections where relations with China will be paramount, a leadership opportunity presents itself.
While the KMT is forced to euphemize and equivocate, DPP leaders should speak openly about the need for political negotiation. This would require them to resist the impulse to use the issue to score political points. It would also require them to develop a credible platform to advance negotiations when the time comes and to deal with the anxiety such discussions will inevitably produce.
In November last year, a man struck a woman with a steel bar and killed her outside a hospital in China’s Fujian Province. Later, he justified his actions to the police by saying that he attacked her because she was small and alone, and he was venting his anger after a dispute with a colleague. To the casual observer, it could be seen as another case of an angry man gone mad for a moment, but on closer inspection, it reflects the sad side of a society long brutalized by violent political struggles triggered by crude Leninism and Maoism. Starting
If social media interaction is any yardstick, India remained one of the top countries for Taiwan last year. President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has on several occasions expressed enthusiasm to strengthen cooperation with India, one of the 18 target nations in her administration’s New Southbound Policy. The past year was instrumental in fostering Taiwan-India ties and will be remembered for accelerated momentum in bilateral relations. However, most of it has been confined to civil society circles. Even though Taiwan launched its southbound policy in 2016, the potential of Taiwan-India engagement remains underutilized. It is crucial to identify what is obstructing greater momentum
In terms of the economic outlook for the semiconductor industry, Taiwan has outperformed the rest of the world for three consecutive years. This is quite rare. In addition, Taiwan has been playing an important role in the US-China technology dispute, and both want Taiwan on their side, reflecting the remaking of the nation’s semiconductor industry. Under the leadership of — above all — Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the industry as a whole has shifted from a focus on capacity to a focus on quality, as companies now have to be able to provide integration of hardware and software, as well as
The US last week took action to remove most of the diplomatic red tape around US-Taiwan relations. While there have been adjustments in State Department “Guidelines on Relations with Taiwan” and other guidance before, no administration has ever so thoroughly dispensed with them. It is a step in the right direction. Of course, when there is a policy of formally recognizing one government (the People’s Republic of China or PRC) and not another (the Republic of China or ROC), officials from the top of government down need a systematic way of operationalizing the distinction. They cannot just make it up as