Changes in the cross-strait relationship over the seven months since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office include a cooling-off in the cross-strait political standoff, the resumption of talks between the Straits Exchange Foundation and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) and increased economic deregulation.
However, Taiwan has had to pay a heavy political price for this relaxation. These costs include having to accept the “one China” framework, denigrating Taiwanese sovereignty, confusing the nation’s status, destroying Taiwanese identity and sacrificing human rights and freedom.
First of all, Ma stresses that the “1992 consensus” implies “one China” with each side having its own interpretation. China — at most — allows that both sides of the Taiwan Strait agree that there is only one China but disagree on how to define it. It has never agreed that the two sides can have their own interpretation of the “one China” principle.
Since Ma took office on May 20, the Chinese government has made it clear on many occasions that no matter what changes occur in cross-strait relations, the “one China” principle will never change. The problem for Taiwan is that because the international community generally accepts China’s definition, Taiwan has to accept the “one China” framework.
Secondly, the Ma administration is denigrating Taiwan’s sovereign status. During his election campaign, Ma said Taiwan was a sovereign and democratic country and on May 21, Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) said it was a sovereign and independent country.
However, in early September, the Ma administration referred to Taiwan as an “area.” Ma is a symbol of Taiwan’s sovereignty, but neglecting national dignity, he was happy to have ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) refer to him as “Mr Ma” while visiting Taiwan. Even after much public protest, Ma accepted being addressed as “you” by Chen. These incidents greatly damaged Taiwan’s national sovereignty.
Ma is blurring Taiwan’s national status. During his election campaign, Ma said “Taiwan” was the Republic of China (ROC). However, after taking office, he said the ROC was “one China” and that this was stipulated in the Constitution and that as president he must act in accord with the Constitution.
However, on many occasions when explaining Taiwan’s position to other countries, Ma has used the term “Taiwan” as shorthand for the ROC. Not once has he said that he is the leader of China or referred to Taiwan as China. Therefore, whether the “ROC” refers to Taiwan or China is unclear.
The Ma government has destroyed Taiwan’s identity. During his election campaign, Ma said he was Taiwanese, that “the future of Taiwan must be decided by the people of Taiwan,” that “Taiwan’s future has nothing to do with China” and that he “will not stand for China interfering in Taiwan’s affairs.”
However, in his inauguration speech, he said both sides of the Taiwan Strait were Chinese and in late October, he said the people in China and Taiwan only had different household registrations, but not different nationalities. According to Ma, the 23 million people of Taiwan and the 1.3 billion people of China were the same people and shared the same nation.
Lastly, the government has also sacrificed human rights and freedom. During his election campaign, Ma strongly criticized the Chinese government for the Tiananmen Square Massacre and the more recent suppression of riots in Tibet. However, after being elected, Ma responded to questions about the Tiananmen Square Massacre by saying the Chinese government had made great improvements over the past 30 years. He also stopped criticizing China’s abuse of human rights and freedom. Early last month, when the Dalai Lama expressed interest in visiting Taiwan, Ma quickly said the time was not right. The Presidential Office later said that this was based on concern for the development of cross-strait relations.
Former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) policy toward China can be summed up as a “clear position on sovereignty and striking a balance between politics and economics,” while Ma’s China strategy can be described as “erosion of sovereignty, political submission and economic deregulation.”
China can break off cross-strait economic negotiations and deregulation at any time and it has not made any clear military or diplomatic concessions to Taiwan. This means that China will be stronger and have more bargaining chips for cross-strait interaction in the long-term. Under such circumstances, it appears Taiwan will be totally reliant on China’s goodwill.
Tung Chen-yuan is associate professor in the Graduate Institute of Development Studies in the College of Social Sciences in National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS