It has only been a few days since the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) promised it would be humble and respect its opponents in the legislature, yet there we were on Thursday with the party's presidential candidate, Ma Ying-jeou (
KMT supporters claim that the campaign team for Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Yu Tien (
Ma told the KMT candidate, Chu Chun-hsiao (
Another curious thing is how Ma thinks that targeting Yu, a popular ethnic Taiwanese singer and actor, would help his image and achieve "reconciliation" with the party's foes. Given that Yu's electorate was one of only two that the DPP won in northern Taiwan, Ma's hardline approach can hardly impress neutral voters looking for a little less gratuitous conflict in politics.
But the strangest thing about this saga is that it comes just after Ma released his wishy-washy "three noes" policy on cross-strait affairs.
The Ma that warned of revenge in Sanchong might have been expected to promise "No compromises, no indignities and no nonsense" in dealing with Beijing. Instead, he promised no move toward unification, no move toward independence and no war.
This is, quite literally, a policy of inaction, and up to eight years of it. The "status quo" so beloved by the US State Department has become Ma's campaign hook, even if it makes no sense whatsoever in strategic terms.
"No war" is an odd thing to sign up to. Clearly, it is not in Taiwan's interests to launch an unprovoked attack on China. It is far more likely that China would be the one to start a war. Therefore Ma must want voters to believe that he, and only he, can stop a war if the Chinese start fueling their missiles.
Ma needs to explain what he would do if China continues lining its coast with weaponry. In other words, he needs to reassure voters that he is prepared to make difficult decisions if the balance of power in Beijing one day tilts to its most militant officials.
The idea that China would be willing to wait four or even eight years before any substantial move is made toward unification is inconsistent with both its rhetoric and its "Anti-Secession" Law, especially with the chance that a reanimated DPP might claim the presidency after that time.
The whole scenario is, quite simply, ridiculous. If the DPP is smart, it will go after these pie-in-the-sky promises, which seem to take no account of the efforts the military makes to protect this country.
A source in the Taiwanese military recently told Defense News of fears that KMT control of the executive would hamper the military's attempts to acquire appropriate weapons and that kickback culture would be reinvigorated as politicians look to make hay out of expensive but ineffective procurements.
Ma might be better off spending his campaign trying to convince voters that he is able to defend the professionalism of the military from such parasites -- not play silly media games sprouting macho language that borders on contempt of court.
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
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
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS