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.
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Swiftly following the conclusion of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) China trip, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office unveiled 10 new policy measures for Taiwan. The measures, covering youth exchanges, agricultural and fishery imports, resumption of certain flights and cultural and media cooperation, appear to offer “incentives” for cross-strait engagement. However, viewed within the political context, their significance lies not in promoting exchanges but in redefining who is qualified to represent Taiwan in dialogue with China. First, the policy statement proposes a “normalized communication mechanism” between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This would shift cross-strait interaction from
RSS