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
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS