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.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS