Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) on Sunday delivered a speech in Bangkok discussing cross-strait tensions and his recommendations for promoting peace between Taiwan and China. He said little new, reiterating the need to “trust” Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and to concentrate on negotiations with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He repeated his appraisal that Taiwan could not win in a war against the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), nor could it rely on military intervention by the US.
Some would ask why people need to listen to what Ma thinks, a washed-up politician, out of power for the best part of a decade. Nevertheless, he still wields considerable influence within the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and his words and actions affect the international perception of Taiwan. Moreover, many Taiwanese agree with him.
Much of the reporting and response to Ma’s speech focused on what he said about Taiwan’s military budget and “money pit” bills, but that was not the most noteworthy aspect of his speech. On the surface, the main thrust of his address was eminently reasonable. He is right that nobody wants to see tensions escalate into war, and that talks and diplomacy are preferable to military action. Nothing he said was a departure from his consistent stance on China during his presidency and in the eight years since. It was also consistent with his ideological position on the concept of “one China” and his loyalty to the Republic of China and its Constitution, as a representative of the KMT.
His attitude toward the CCP in general and to Xi in particular is certainly a major departure from the KMT’s previous stance, but it would be lazy to criticize him on that point alone. Circumstances change, cross-strait dynamics are not what they were four decades ago and the threat from the PLA is vastly more serious.
What cannot be ignored are his myopic appraisal of Xi and the omission of what Taiwanese want. Ma met Xi in Beijing in April. He said he found the Chinese leader to be “extremely gentle and amiable,” that Xi hoped more Taiwanese would visit China and that Chinese should visit Taiwan, to promote mutual understanding and trust. Ma said he believed that this was an expression of Xi’s goodwill and sincerity toward Taiwanese, and that as long as people on either side of the Taiwan Strait identify as being ethnically Chinese, then anything can be open to negotiation.
The picture Ma painted of Xi in his Bangkok speech was that of a perfectly reasonable, avuncular individual. He paints President William Lai (賴清德) as an obstinate impediment to a path to peace.
Ma’s omissions of the fundamental realities of the CCP’s constant threats of war are so glaring that they are not worth addressing here. Of interest is that a former president can speak so glowingly of the man who threatens to rain down fire and brimstone on Taiwan, and who would so willingly allow negotiations on the future of Taiwanese to be orchestrated by a foreign power.
On this page, Paraguayan Ambassador to the Republic of China Carlos Jose Fleitas Rodriguez writes about a statement by Paraguayan President Santiago Pena that his country recognizes Taiwan’s right to self-determination as a nation, as enshrined in the International Covenants on Human Rights and justified by possession of the four criteria for statehood as set out in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. If the president of a diplomatic ally can say that, why can a former president of Taiwan not say it?
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS