Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) finally came up with a somewhat original perspective on cross-strait relations during his visit to Japan at the end of last month. On Nov. 22, during a meeting with the Japan-ROC Diet Members' Consultative Council, better known as the Nikakon (日華懇談會), Ma pledged that there would be neither unification negotiations with China nor moves toward independence during his term. Instead, he would attempt to maintain the "status quo."
Later, during an interview on Japanese TV, Ma said that Taiwan does not necessarily need a predetermined stance prior to opening negotiations with China and described his cross-strait policy as one of non-unification, non-independence and non-violence.
Then, in a meeting with American Institute in Taiwan Chairman Raymond Burghardt, Ma said that if elected, he would not discuss the unification versus independence issue and he would not unilaterally alter the cross-strait "status quo."
But Ma's stance on Taiwan's future is eventual unification. This would be cause for concern if he were to become president.
If China says that the "status quo" already is unification, then any move by Taiwan to seek international recognition of its sovereignty is a matter of dividing the "motherland" and pursuing independence.
Ma's proposal of re-joining the UN as the Republic of China (ROC) competes with the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the representation of China. It is either blatantly deceitful or extremely wishful thinking. If Ma were serious about entry into the mainstream international community, then our status must be that of an independent, sovereign nation.
To the PRC, this would be tantamount to dividing Chinese sovereignty. If Ma became president of the ROC, would he challenge international law and the political order?
If this does not go against his policy of eventual unification, would he dare claim that the ROC, like the PRC, is an independent sovereign state?
If Ma's eventual unification refers to the unification of the power to govern China, does that mean a unification in which China annexes Taiwan, Taiwan annexes China, or cooperating to create a new China? Should we hold a referendum to seek the opinion of Taiwanese?
In a speech at the London School of Economics last year, Ma said that Taiwan is already a mature democracy in which unification would require the consent of the public. How is this different from the Democratic Progressive Party's Resolution on Taiwan's Future, which stipulates that a change to the current state of sovereignty requires a referendum?
Ma's support of the KMT referendum to re-join the UN is a lie designed to dupe pan-blue supporters. He claims there is no need for a predetermined stance prior to opening negotiations with China, but China already has a predetermined stance that it is forcing Taiwan to accept.
The KMT charter calls for Taiwan and China to leave political conflict aside and pursue unification based on the "one country, two interpretations" stipulation of the so-called "1992 consensus," with the aim of progressing toward a peaceful cross-strait relationship and unification based on democracy, liberty and equal prosperity.
But does China allow Taiwan the space to express its interpretation of "one country" in the international community? Is there a concept of "one country, two sovereignties" in international law? If not, "one country, two interpretations" will fall into the trap China has set in the international community, giving the PRC the exclusive right to interpret the meaning of "one country."
The result would be tantamount to silent acknowledgment of the PRC's right to represent China. It would demonstrate an unwillingness to break through the "status quo," which allows Taiwan no opportunity to participate in the international community as a sovereign state.
We applaud Ma's courage in pledging non-unification to Japan and the US. However, if this is his new stance, then does it not violate the KMT charter?
If a proponent of eventual unification pledges to refrain from promoting it as president, when he is in a most advantageous position to actually do so, then who should be given the decision?
Is it not the right of Taiwanese to determine their own future through referendum while maintaining the country's current independent sovereignty?
Tseng Chien-yuan is an assistant professor at Chung Hua University's Department of Public Administration.
Translated by Angela Hong
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS