President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) must be feeling on the defensive about his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). On Nov. 22, he even went so far as to publish an op-ed in USA Today, in which he outlined his rationale for the meeting, emphasizing that adherence to the [so-called] “1992 consensus” is now “the master plan for peace in the Taiwan Strait.”
The problem with this rationale is that the “1992 consensus” is an extremely feeble basis for at least two reasons: its vague definition — what are the “different interpretations”? — and the fact that it severely restricts Taiwan’s options. The basic premise underlying Ma and Xi’s “1992 consensus” is clearly “unification with China,” and that premise has been soundly rejected by the overwhelming majority of Taiwanese.
In the newspaper article, Ma lauded the Nov. 7 Singapore meeting, saying: “For the first time, leaders of the two sides formally endorsed the 1992 consensus.”
It is certain that one of those leaders — Ma — did not represent the democratic wishes of his nation, while the other is the ruler of an authoritarian dictatorial regime, so there is also considerable doubt that Xi really represents his people.
In an opinion poll conducted by Taiwan Indicators Survey Research after the Singapore meeting, distrust of Ma was indicated by an overwhelming 60 percent of respondents, while only 27 percent said they trusted him.
Xi fared even worse: 62.9 percent said they distrusted him, while only 17.9 percent said they trusted him, according to the poll.
In the article, Ma said that “domestically, I aimed to establish a transparent process that people can trust.”
The major problem with Ma’s reign over the past few years has been its lack of transparency, and adequate checks and balances.
Time and again, he moved ahead on issues without adequate consultation with the Legislative Yuan. Time and again he attempted to push Taiwan into a closer embrace with China, against the expressed wishes of a large majority of Taiwanese. This has led to trust in Ma and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to fall an all-time low.
It is also ironic to see that in the USA Today article, Ma said that “this meeting also marked the first time our side directly conveyed to the mainland side our deep concerns about military deployment against Taiwan, as well as Taiwan’s squeezed international space.”
Really? Ma has been in office for almost eight years now, and this is the first time that such concerns have been expressed?
These two problems have been around for decades, and it is not until now that Ma sees an opportunity to convey his concerns? In that case he has surely been grossly negligent in his duties to defend national sovereignty and interests. Those concerns should have been expressed on the first day he took office.
What Ma is attempting to do is actually endangering peace in the Taiwan Strait by locking Taiwan into a trajectory that binds it more closely to a repressive and undemocratic China.
True peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait can only be achieved if the People’s Republic of China can be convinced to accept Taiwan as a free and democratic neighbor, and the international community can welcome this vibrant democracy as a full and equal member of the international family of nations.
Mark Kao is president of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, a Taiwanese-American grassroots organization in Washington.
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