Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) landed himself in hot water again after he said in an interview with Deutsche Welle on Wednesday last week that Taiwanese would “accept unification” with China.
Ma said that unification is an aim of the Republic of China through the Constitution, and that Taiwanese would accept unification if it were achieved “peacefully and through a democratic process.”
While Ma is correct on the Constitution, he is wrong about public sentiment. Several independent polls regularly show Taiwanese overwhelmingly want to preserve the so-called “status quo” of Taiwan-China relations.
Arguably, the growing number of incursions by China’s military into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone indicate that no such “status quo” exists, and that China is seeking to push unification through the coercion of Taiwanese. Nevertheless, it could be said that most Taiwanese would not accept China’s proposal to turn Taiwan into a Special Administrative Region akin to Hong Kong and Macau. Taiwanese demonstrated this on Saturday last week when they voted for president-elect William Lai (賴清德).
Public opinion seems to be lost on Ma, who said in the interview that Taiwanese “have to” trust Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on cross-strait relations. He said that, despite Beijing blatantly breaking its promise to the UK to protect Hong Kong’s freedoms and autonomy until 2047 when it promulgated the territory’s National Security Law in 2020 and proceeded to carry out widespread arrests of democracy advocates.
Ma’s remarks were rebuffed by the Democratic Progressive Party and dismissed by his own Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and could be ignored as the personal opinions of an out-of-touch former president.
However, what should not be ignored are Ma’s comments on Taiwan’s defense. Ma told the interviewer that Taiwan should cut defense spending, saying it was “too optimistic” to expect Taiwan to defend itself during a Chinese attack until Japan or the US intervened.
“No matter how much you defend yourself, you can never fight a war with the mainland. You can never win, they [China] are too large, too much stronger than us,” the Central News Agency quoted Ma as saying.
Ma’s defeatist attitude is destructive to the morale of the military and of KMT supporters who might draw inspiration from him. His comments also fly in the face of the US military officials and analysts who have said that Taiwan needs to boost defense — which it has been doing. Taiwan is building and procuring more air-defense missile systems, and building its own corvettes and submarines, all of which are important measures needing support.
Thankfully, the defeated KMT presidential candidate, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), publicly responded to Ma’s interview, saying: “Ma’s thinking differs from my own.”
“My consistent policy is the 3D strategy of deterrence, strengthening national defense and armaments, and increasing self-defense capabilities while pursuing dialogue and discussion,” Hou said at a campaign event.
If elected, he would “stubbornly defend Taiwan’s democracy and freedom while opposing Beijing’s ‘one country, two systems’ formula for unifying with Taiwan,” he said.
Seemingly to clarify its non-alignment with Ma on Taiwan’s defense, the KMT did not invite him to its election-eve rally in New Taipei City.
“Former president Ma and I have very different positions on certain issues. If elected, I will not touch on issues regarding unification with China,” Hou said at the rally.
It is promising to see the KMT distance itself from Ma, and it shows it is aware that the public does not support unification. Given China’s cognitive warfare efforts and constant threats, Taiwan’s military needs affirmation and a morale boost. Anything that saps morale should be met with a swift response.
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
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
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS