Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Last Wednesday, Ma gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. Here are some highlights:
Ma said that right after President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) first won election to the presidency in 2000, his approval rating was high (80 percent) because he paid his respects to the KMT's bigwigs, appointed General Tang Fei (唐飛)as head of the Executive Yuan and made the "five noes" pledge in his inauguration address.
Later, Chen advocated "one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait," and provoked and angered China, causing his popularity to plunge and resulting in successive defeats in the polls for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Ma said.
Ma said Taiwan's future prosperity depends on closer economic integration with China. Otherwise, it will be excluded from the ASEAN plus two or plus three free-trade agreement and its economy will be marginalized. If the KMT were to win the 2008 presidential election, Ma plans to carry out five policy goals: resume negotiations with Beijing under the so-called "1992 consensus," sign a peace accord with China, work to establish a common market across the Taiwan Strait, increase Taiwan's international participation and boost cultural and educational exchanges. Ma ended his speech by labeling Chen a troublemaker and himself a peacemaker.
Ma didn't spell out the quid pro quo which will prompt China to renounce its use of force against Taiwan, but it has to be acceptance of the "one China" principle. The peace accord idea is not new. US academics and former officials have advanced the same idea under the name of an "interim agreement." The key ingredient is that Taiwan permanently forgoes any possibility of independence.
Of course, once Taiwan surrenders its sovereignty there is no need for China to resort to force, so Ma's peace accord is a poor bargain for the Taiwanese, who will forfeit their hard-won freedom for an empty promise of autonomy. Hong Kong was promised 50 years of democracy, but Beijing quickly reneged on that commitment.
Ma's command of English and his oratorical skill were less than impressive. It was obvious, however, that he had expended much effort in anticipating questions and preparing answers, even though many of his responses were facetious.
During the question and answer session that followed Ma's speech, this writer managed to ask the following question: "You have said Taiwan should focus on maintaining the status quo. This is disingenuous because the KMT's actions are changing the status quo in favor of China. For example, the pan-blues have blocked the arms procurement bill in the legislature's Procedure Committee, weakening Taiwan's security even though China continues to develop its military capacity. Second, Taiwan's economy is being hollowed out due to the mass exodus of capital, technology and manpower to China. Yet the KMT advocates greater economic integration with China and early implementation of direct links. Lastly, to maintain the status quo, what is needed is unity, yet the pan-blues are actively undermining the Chen administration's ability to govern effectively, for example, by persisting in the `March 19 truth investigation' of the assassination attempt on the president and vice president and introducing a peace promotion bill, designed to usurp the executive power of the DPP government and create an environment conducive to Taiwan's annexation by China."
Actually, the exact wording of my question was more brief, due to time constraints.
Finally, I asked Ma: "As KMT chairman, do you believe you owe your allegiance to Taiwan, or to China, or perhaps to both?"
Regarding the failure to advance the arms bill, Ma said the main fault lies with the DPP, which did not introduce a bill until June 2004, more than three years after the US offered the arms package in the spring of 2001.
Ma didn't comment on the growing dependence of Taiwan's economy on China and the attendant dangers to Taiwan's security and prosperity. On the pan-blues' incessant harassment of the government, Ma merely said it was the opposition party's duty to oppose the government. Obviously, Ma does not understand the difference between the loyal opposition of a normal democracy and the subversive, disloyal behavior of the pan-blue legislators.
On the question of allegiance, Ma said he pledged allegiance to the Republic of China, which was established in 1912.
Ma didn't say much new at the American Enterprise Institute. What he failed to mention was more significant. He didn't criticize China's military threat or diplomatic pressure against Taiwan. There was no denunciation of China's autocratic rule, nor any praise of Taiwan's democratic achievements. He didn't propose any plan to bolster Taiwan's national defense or to strengthen economic security.
Ma's definition of the status quo is troublesome. It means no immediate unification, no permanent separation of Taiwan from China and no de jure independence. Ma appears to regard the status quo as an extension of China' civil war, which ended in 1949. To Ma, the status quo is a temporary transition to ultimate unification. He mentioned a transition period of 30 to 50 years. This is a facetious ruse. Once a peace accord is implemented, the morale of Taiwan's armed forces and citizenry will collapse. The US' Taiwan Relations Act will be abrogated and China can renege on its promise of autonomy.
Ma has made contradictory statements on Taiwan's future. He has said the KMT's aim is ultimate unification, but a KMT ad in the Liberty Times stated that de jure independence was also an option.
He said on one occasion that the fate of Taiwan should be decided by the 23 million people of Taiwan, and on another occasion that both the 1.3 billion Chinese and the Taiwanese should decide. Such vacillations reflect his need to win the votes of the majority of the Taiwanese who reject unification, while retaining the support of his pro-unification minority base and Beijing's goodwill. Yet it is clear from his words and deeds that his heart is with China. He is firmly committed to Taiwan's eventual annexation by China.
Ma poses a grave danger to Taiwan's survival as an independent democracy because many people in Taiwan and in the US policy establishment could misjudge his true intentions.
Huan Jei-hsuan of California has pointed out other dangers should Ma win the presidency in 2008 (Letter, Jan. 22, page 8). If a peace accord is signed and formal Taiwanese independence is outlawed, a popular uprising could occur. This is plausible since the armed forces consist preponderantly of native Taiwanese, who do not regard themselves as Chinese.
If internal strife develops, this will give the People's Liberation Army (PLA) a good excuse to invade Taiwan. Instead of peace, Ma's election will thus trigger a war that nobody wants.
On the other hand, if Ma is tardy in delivering Taiwan, the PLA could also launch an attack. The US is tied down in Iraq and will not be able to extricate itself until after 2008. Chinese nationalism will reach to a heady peak right after Beijing hosts the 2008 Olympics. The US State Department's recent policy of tilting toward Beijing may also lead the PLA to calculate that the US will not intervene.
Huang's theory that a Ma victory will precipitate war is debatable. But the life and liberty of all Taiwanese is a serious matter. Voters should elect a leader they can fully trust to preserve Taiwan's sovereignty and democracy in accordance with the will of the majority. The election of Ma as president could well sound the death knell for Taiwan's freedom. Prudence calls for a president whose pledge of allegiance to Taiwan and commitment to freedom are beyond any doubt.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS