During his historic trip to China, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) asked his Chinese Communist Party counterpart, Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), to respect Taiwan’s participation in international organizations. Wu also emphasized that “Taiwanese identity” should not be treated as “Taiwanese independence.”
As the KMT pursues a quick resumption of cross-strait talks on direct links and allowing Chinese tourists into Taiwan, Wu and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) understand that the highly anticipated breakthrough in the cross-strait deadlock must be accompanied by Beijing giving Taiwan more international room.
Ma and the KMT leadership also realize that the key reason for Taiwan’s second transfer of power is the corruption that existed under the Democratic Progressive Party government, and not former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) push for Taiwanese consciousness.
Dislike of Chen and his government helped Ma to become president; his moderate image and a promise to rejuvenate the economy also played a role.
But governing a country requires more than a personal image. It takes full coordination and policy execution to live up to public expectations.
If Wu did not refer to Ma as president in front of Hu to avoid sovereign symbols, then to what extent can we trust the KMT to stand firm on Taiwan’s behalf — even if Beijing winds down its campaign of isolating Taipei?
As democratic concepts mature, the gap between the pan-green and pan-blue camps on the independence-unification dichotomy will become meaningless. The notion that Taiwan — or the Republic of China — is a sovereign and independent state will receive mainstream acceptance.
National identity is being played down as an issue even as it is being consolidated; it is in this context that Taiwan’s democracy will enter the next phase: judging a national leader by a higher standard.
If Chen was judged by most domestic and international observers as simply a politician pushing the envelope, then it is sad to see that Ma is slowly adopting the same model — running the country like an election campaign — and keeping political opportunism firmly in the grasp of the Presidential Office.
The publication of an advertisement pledging that “the future of Taiwan should be decided by the Taiwanese people” in pro-independence media outlets before the presidential election was a move by Ma’s camp to appeal to the DPP’s support base in southern Taiwan.
But in his inaugural speech, Ma did not refer to this issue other than by praising Hu’s recent statements on resuming cross-strait dialogue based on the so-called “1992 consensus.”
To avoid the perception that the KMT is tilting toward the Chinese Communist Party, Ma also labeled the party-to-party talks as “track two” in the facilitation of bilateral understanding. It is a strategy to downplay criticism that Ma and the KMT might sell out Taiwan.
But whether Beijing will relax its diplomatic stranglehold on Taiwan is uncertain. Getting results in this regard constitutes Ma’s greatest challenge.
Ma is using his mandate of 58 percent of the vote to assimilate the DPP legacy of building Taiwanese identity — but simply out of electoral concerns. Yet when the KMT contacts Beijing, Ma sets aside notions of a Taiwan-centered identity.
Is Ma doing this in the national interest? Is he a man of principle? Can he stand up to hardcore pro-unification forces, including the old guard led by former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰)? Or is he simply an opportunist?
These are questions that cannot be answered for now. But the public needs them soon.
Liu Shih-chung is a Taipei-based political commentator.
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