During his tour of the US, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
Ma made some correct statements. He voiced his indignation at Beijing, saying that if China continued to oppress Taiwan, it would not only be independence activists who opposed Beijing, but that he would do so too.
He insisted that the "Republic of China" (ROC) is an independent and sovereign state, and that a resolution of cross-strait differences should be sought through dialogue. He sees Taiwan-US relations as even more important than cross-strait relations, and opposes the UN's drive to promote the use of simplified Chinese characters. Ma's arguments, along with his oratorical skills, may make him a much worthier leader of the opposition.
The problem is that Ma's vision of the development of cross-strait relations is distorted by wishful thinking. For example, he still markets the "1992 consensus," which never existed, for China has never departed from its position that there is only one China in the world, that Taiwan is part of China and that the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) is the only legitimate government of China. Ma must surely be aware that Beijing's idea of a consensus is that Taiwan accepts China's position on the issue, no matter what.
In addition, the PRC has consistently rejected the concepts of "one China, one Taiwan" and "two Chinas." Beijing has also opposed participation in international events organized by the UN by official Taiwanese representatives using a title that may imply national sovereignty. It is unlikely, therefore, that China is going to accept Ma's standpoint of "one China, with each side having its own interpretation."
Ma has also said that China will have to accept one of two titles for Taiwan: either the Republic of China or the Republic of Taiwan. That's fine as a joke, but he can't really mean it, for both titles have been rejected by the PRC since 1971, when the UN recognized the PRC. In the absence of an alternative, would Ma himself be willing to accept the title "Republic of Taiwan"? Considering his recent comments made during a trip to the UK that the KMT continues to frown on Taiwanese independence, the answer is clearly no.
Beijing is not going to make any compromises unless Ma has the guts to announce the KMT would consider Taiwanese independence, effectively using a policy he doesn't agree with as a bargaining chip.
When Ma talks of "one China," he is referring to the ROC, whose territory includes the PRC, Inner Mongolia and Taiwan. This not only goes against international consensus, but also betrays a stubbornness of which dictator Chiang Kai-shek (
It would seem that the new generation of KMT leaders do not have anything new to say, still fantasizing that their David can fell China's Goliath, unaware that they are in constant danger of being flattened.
Ma's trip to the US should have taught him that he still has much to learn about international politics.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS