Now that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been in power for a few months, one would have hoped that a clearer picture of his vision for the nation would emerge.
Sadly, this has not happened.
The one thing that is certain is that the Ma government is committed to maintaining the “status quo,” which means perpetrating the “one China” formula — with or without the 1992 fig leaf of ambiguous interpretation.
With the “status quo” mantra in place, the administration has hoped to create relative stability in cross-strait relations. This, in turn, is supposed to lead to quantitative improvements in economic relations in all sectors that have benefits for all Taiwanese.
So far, though, the anticipated hike in economic indicators, such as the stock market, has not materialized, which is causing the government considerable embarrassment.
In other words, all the fanfare over instant nirvana from stable cross-strait relations was empty hype.
Unless the Ma government has given up on Taiwan’s sovereignty, it is certainly heading in the wrong direction in conducting its relations with China.
An important principle of international diplomacy is not to show all one’s cards when conducting formal or informal relations.
But the Ma administration has acted in such unseemly haste that its emissaries and officials have appeared ecstatic to have been received in Beijing in any capacity.
The whole exercise has been undignified and one-sided, with Taiwan looking like a supplicant.
The Ma administration has therefore lost whatever leverage it once had to fashion its relations with Beijing to its advantage. It seems to think that opening and expanding economic and other ties with China will catapult Taiwan to new levels of prosperity.
But this is not happening, which means that the Ma government will grow more preoccupied with bridging the gap between rhetoric and reality.
The worst thing is that, having pinned all its expectations on Beijing, the government will likely find it hard to regain lost ground.
In the meantime, the US’ commitment to defend Taiwan is languishing. Of course, a US commitment to help Taiwan remains. But where are the new weapons to defend against China’s military machine?
The Taiwan-US relationship is caught in a complex tangle involving US hesitancy to complicate relations with China over Taiwan. Amid a background of Washington’s overstretched military and years of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) obstruction of arms bills, the Ma government’s ambiguous position on Taiwan’s final status only exacerbates Taiwan’s vulnerability.
The Ma administration’s ability to defend Taiwan is being compromised as Beijing applies the screws through likeminded elements in the KMT.
At the same time, Taiwan’s international space is likely to shrink further as allies gain the impression that the Ma regime is now more aligned with China.
Taiwan was already having serious problems expanding its international space via membership of international organizations and fostering relations with other states. But if Ma thought that Beijing would assist Taiwan in expanding its international space simply because a KMT government had been elected, then he was deluded.
The KMT has no clear idea where it is going, other than making every effort to impress Beijing with its cooperativeness.
Taiwan is therefore in dire straits —assuming its people value their political identity and sovereignty.
It is time those who do value such things wake up and energize their political institutions to meet this grim challenge.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS