President Ma Ying Jeou’s (馬英九) first state visit to diplomatic allies is under way. In the past, these small states in Central and South America learned to profit from the cross-strait diplomatic competition by approaching Taipei and Beijing with their hands out. Now, however, Ma’s stress on his cross-strait “diplomatic truce” means that they are weighing their options. Ma should be given credit for his new approach in so far as it means that our allies will not get everything they ask for, but the “diplomatic truce” must not mean giving up allies without a fight.
In a true diplomatic truce, both sides would have to lay down their arms. Now, Taiwan is at an extreme disadvantage in its diplomatic tug-of-war with China. The capital and energy invested in the past was intended to avert the crisis over Taiwan’s sovereignty and international space. In such life-and-death battles, there is no room for mistakes.
Diplomacy is a game of deceit, and the members of the international community look for substantial benefits. Ma’s new diplomatic strategy is ultimately dependent on China’s goodwill, and the fact that he is already leaning toward China leaves him no space for negotiation and compromise. If our allies turn to Beijing, one might say that such allies are not worth having, but we must remember that without those allies, Taiwan will become even more isolated and helpless internationally. Ma and his government will be the first to suffer if that happens.
Considering that China has always done all it can to suppress Taiwan internationally, it is absurd to pin our hopes on Beijing not trying to entice our allies simple because of the so-called “diplomatic truce.” Predicating the “truce” on China’s goodwill begs the question of how much trust there is between the two sides, and how long that trust, if it indeed exists, will persist. These are all unknowable variables
Before implementing the “diplomatic truce,” the focus must be on communicating our ideals and persuading China, and not on unilateral compromise. Since this is a new approach to maintaining national sovereignty, there can be no confusion between means and goals.
The Ma administration wants to abandon the money diplomacy but maintain our allies. What is the overall diplomatic strategy that will achieve this goal? As president, it is Ma’s duty to clearly explain this to the Taiwanese. While it is true that his administration has reduced cross-strait tension — at least for now — the closer relationship is a problem for the US because it is no longer clear where Taiwan belongs. Despite this, Ma has not offered an unambiguous explanation, and his government policy continues to lean heavily toward China without any signs that the government sees cause for alarm or a need to correct the situation.
Still, militarily, economically and internationally, the US remains Taiwan’s most important supporter. The US government is still waiting for Ma to react to the rumored freeze on US arms sales to Taiwan. A president is supposed to set a nation’s primary goals and deal with the big issues.
Rather than micro-managing and fiddling with trivialities such as saving a few dollars on chartering regular aircraft for overseas state visits, Ma should expend his efforts on designing the main direction of the nation’s future development.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS