A letter to President Ma
Mr President,
Since you took office on May 20, you will no doubt have seen that the popularity of your policies and the public’s belief in your leadership have fallen considerably. Of course, in a democratic climate where very few media are impartial or objective it is hard to engage in constructive debate about complex policies in such a way to build genuine consensus. Just ask US president-elect Barack Obama.
Leading a country is a massive responsibility that comes with great recognition and honor but can also lead to shame and ignominy. A lack of information means that many citizens will no doubt judge you based upon the limited exposure they have to your ideas, and they are of course not aware of all the factors that may influence your decisions.
That being said, citizens are entitled to expect their president to actively lead and represent their country well. What separates former US president Franklin D. Roosevelt from US President George W. Bush and Sun Yat-sen (孫逸仙) from Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) is that the former saw their leaderships as duties that required sensitivity, restraint and intelligence, while the latter regarded their tenures as podiums for grandstanding, protecting personal business interests and lining their pockets. The former were refined, active and firm; the latter were crude, passive and aggressive.
In March, 57 percent of eligible voters chose you to protect their country and their interests and above all to act with the utmost respect for, and loyalty to, a nation they most commonly refer to as Taiwan. They heard you say you would protect “Taiwan” and they remember that you promised things would improve under your administration. Over 500,000 people recently gathered in Taipei to ask you why they haven’t.
A president needs to passionately love her or his country, the evidence of which is in their words and deeds. I have no doubt that you love a country, but I fear it is not the country beloved by at least two-thirds of the population who see in this native soil an inherent sovereignty. Instead, your prioritizing of the Republic of China (ROC), downgrading Taiwan to a region and your insistence on using the phrase “mainland” rather than “China” suggests an attempt to “re-Sinicize” Taiwanese.
After 12 years of rising identification with the “Taiwan country brand” it seems that Taiwanese are now being asked to once again regard their nationality as “Chinese” while retaining “Taiwanese,” “Hakka” and Aboriginal as their “local” identities.
Your conscientious observance of the ROC Constitution implies that you wish to lead as a model Chinese citizen in Taiwan.
If you insist on regarding Taiwan as a “local” part of the ROC, then you will at least need the ROC Constitution to be affirmed by voters through a referendum.
The Taiwanese have never been given the opportunity to vote for their own Constitution. This means that the existing document, and all its rules and institutions, have no popular mandate. Is this why there is little rule of law and heightened instability in this democracy?
Though you might wish otherwise, the name and identity of this nation are still undecided. The fate of democracy and freedom in Taiwan rests upon whether you are able to show sensitivity to this fact and respect the cultural heterogeneity of this, your sovereign country.
With my deepest respect, Sir.
Ben Goren
Taichung
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS