During President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) time in office, he has pushed ahead with what he has called a diplomatic truce with China. This means that Ma kowtows to China in every way possible, and that interviews with foreign media no longer serve as a platform for defending Taiwan’s rights and interests as they used to under the former administration.
However, this is the way Ma likes it. When he has nothing to say, he makes up something ambiguous and the whole affair ends up with “corrections” and “clarifications.”
His recent interview with The Associated Press (AP) was no exception. The more he spoke, the more pro-Chinese he sounded, and he showed that internationally he fears China, while at home he fears the voters. These two fears have one thing in common — fear of not being re-elected. This kowtowing and deception was at the center of his demand that AP “correct” its report about the interview.
Ma was most concerned with correcting his remarks about China implementing democracy and respecting human rights as a conditional basis for any form of political unification. The AP reporter was worried that he may have misunderstood and therefore asked follow-up questions to clarify Ma’s stance. Ma, however, did not clarify things on the spot, but instead demanded a correction later on because he was afraid that what he said might have offended China.
The second correction that Ma, who seemingly supports the idea of “eventual unification” with China, wanted was to emphasize that there was no timetable according to which he would start political talks with China if re-elected. The AP reporter asked follow-up questions on this with the caveat “if my understanding is correct” to confirm Ma’s answers, but Ma failed to “correct” anything, saying instead that it would depend on how fast relations with China develop and whether economic issues could be satisfactorily resolved.
In other words, Ma said that economic issues should be resolved before discussing political issues, and did not reject the possibility that he would initiate political talks with China if he won a second term. He only said it would depend on the progress of economic talks — a reasonable interpretation is, of course, that once economic talks were completed, they would be followed by political talks. That kind of statement would scare off voters and so he had to lie to cover up his intent.
The statement about not having a timetable for political talks was exposed as a lie by China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi (王毅) when he said economic talks have already included discussion about political issues. This makes it clear that Beijing directs the talks and Ma is unable to resist. He will have to forget his preconditions of democracy and human rights for talks as his stance is even weaker than the 1991 Guidelines for National Unification.
Three days before the US and China established diplomatic relations, they were still saying that there was no timetable for doing so, which of course was an obvious lie. The same is true of Ma’s comments. Taiwanese voters may have been cheated once, but having seen Ma break his promises, they will not be cheated a second time.
James Wang is a -commentator on the media.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS