At first glance, former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) visit to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) seems to be a step to “ensure peace and avoid war.”
However, Ma’s speeches during the trip regarding the “one China” narrative help justify China’s military expansionism and put Taiwan at risk. Ma provides the PRC with a political discourse to rationalize an invasion of Taiwan, which resembles the rhetoric applied by Nazi Germany on the annexation of Austria and Russian President Vladimir Putin on invading Ukraine.
During his trip, Ma said Taiwan and China are “both China” under the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution, adding that “our country has been divided into two parts, one is the Taiwan area, and the other is the mainland area. Both are part of our Republic of China, both are China.”
Apparently, Ma was flattering himself by the concept of “constitutional one China,” but his words also implied that the ROC’s sovereignty is complete only when Taiwan (alongside “the mainland”) is part of China.
Ma’s interpretation of “one China” puts Taiwan at risk because such a narrative resembles Adolf Hitler’s and Putin’s pretexts for invading neighboring countries. Even though Austria had never been a part of the German Empire, Nazi Germany claimed Austria as a “German land” and that the separation between two countries was nothing but an artificial consequence of the treaties that followed the end of World War I.
To justify the annexation of Austria, the German propaganda pushed a narrative that Austria’s sovereignty and national identity were only meaningful when it was united with Nazi Germany.
On March 15, 1938, days after German troops crossed the Austrian border, news articles worldwide quoted Hitler as telling a journalist: “I have performed a work of peace here. If I had not intervened there would have been a bloody revolution and Austria might well have been another Spain in the heart of Europe.”
Hitler claimed that Austria was politically too unstable (even though that instability was greatly attributed to Austrian Nazis’ activity ordered by Germany) that the country’s sovereignty became unsustainable.
Hitler said that Austria was at the edge of civil war and its sovereignty would be annihilated unless Germany intervened to unify the “Greater Germanic Reich.”
Does his rhetoric sound familiar to Ma’s?
It might be too early to determine whether the PRC’s propaganda apparatus will appropriate Ma’s narrative to justify an invasion of Taiwan.
However, it is sure that similar rhetoric has been used repeatedly by various invaders in history.
Railing against Ukraine as a “failed state,” Putin has repeatedly said that “Ukraine is not a real country” over the past decade.
In 2021, Putin said: “Ukraine’s true sovereignty is possible only in partnership with Russia.”
Seven months later, Russia launched the “special military operation” invading Ukraine.
To justify their invasions of a neighboring country, various aggressors in history have championed the same rhetoric: to annex a neighbor’s territory in the name of preserving their sovereignty.
Now, Ma’s narrative is giving the PRC an opening to establish a similar rhetoric.
The world should be aware that a Chinese military campaign against Taiwan would escalate when narratives like this emerge: China annexing Taiwan is to protect the ROC’s sovereignty, which is doomed to be annihilated unless Taiwan becomes part of China.
Taiwan must be cautious of any adjustments of the PRC’s propaganda following Ma’s visit.
Lionel Te-Chen Chiou is a Sydney-based freelance journalist specializing in cultural affairs and focusing on the Chinese Communist Party and its narrative control.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS