A veil has been drawn over the world’s media. Last weekend’s half-million strong protest against China and the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) barely rated a mention in major outlets. Instead, a trifling incident in Tainan involving a flatfooted Chinese delegation and poor security measures was blown out of proportion by local and international media and the government. Prosecutors are leading the charge and champing at the bit to kill a few chickens and scare a few monkeys — the chickens being the elderly and excitable hacks from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the monkeys those who dare oppose government policy on China.
Foreign commentators could be forgiven for seeing reports of another mass rally on the streets of Taipei and yawning. After all, such protests are not uncommon and almost never result in violence or significant disruption. In this case, however, the DPP protest marked the beginning of the end of Ma’s grace period as an engineer for cross-strait rapprochement. The tide has turned, and the nervousness of the Ma administration as it battles fiscal incompetence and ideological banality reflects this.
Mediocre governments, like mediocre individuals, revert to what they know best when placed under pressure, even if this is the opposite of what is required to change the situation to their advantage.
In the case of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and its proxies in the judicial system, this amounts to narrowing the gap between party and state so clumsily and risibly that ordinary people detect weakness and malice — and grow more nervous.
Consistent with the KMT’s legislative agenda, the government and judicial officers are politicizing agencies to the point where their neutrality should be called into question. The protests that will follow Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), chairman of China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS), are threatening to tap dissatisfaction over these developments, and could result in a deterioration that Ma manifestly does not have the skill to handle.
In other words, courtesy of Ma’s ineptitude, it seems inevitable that cross-strait detente was going to arrive hand in hand with civil unrest.
The irony of all this, of course, is that Ma was Washington’s preferred candidate. Yet the US seemed oblivious that the KMT government was going to have to deal with concerted opposition to its policies — and in the same manner as the ancien regime.
Representations have already been made to the US State Department about increasing abuse of speculative powers by local prosecutors and their disgraceful manipulation of the media. What kind of reception they will receive is hard to predict. On the one hand, the State Department boasts an admirable mechanism of global human rights analysis that culminates in an indispensable annual report. On the other, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been tarred by the Bush administration’s attacks on fundamental judicial processes in the Guantanamo Bay debacle.
The likely scenario is that American Institute in Taiwan Director Stephen Young will have a few quiet words with President Ma or Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) after the ARATS visit is over.
By that time, it may be too late. There is evidence that politicized members of the community are girding for something more dramatic. If this turns out to be the case, the State Department and the AIT might refer to an American classic of political thought, Civil Disobedience — referred to on this page in yesterday’s edition — before speaking out. There they might find insights into the entitlements of an unhappy citizenry in the face of a government that undermines civil liberties and the spirit of the law.
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