Rushing to respond to President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) recent interview with the Wall Street Journal in which he was quoted as supporting a timetable of 10 years for Taiwan and China to consider unification, the Presidential Office on Tuesday said that the president had been misquoted.
Ma’s actual and complete wording was: “Whether there will be reunification as expected by the mainland side depends very much on what is going to unfold in the next decades.
“This is a question no one can answer at this stage. But as the president of this country, I believe that the 23 million people of Taiwan want to secure one or two generations of peace and prosperity so that people on either side of the Taiwan Strait can have sufficient time and freedom to understand, to appreciate and to decide what to do,” the Presidential Office’s version read, stressing that Ma’s words in the Nov. 25 interview were “next decades,” not “next decade.”
The Presidential Office may think it has put out the fire with this explanation, but it has missed the point.
Whether the wording was “next decade” or “next decades” is beside the case.
The crux of the controversy is: What gives Ma the authority to set a timetable of any duration for Taiwanese to consider unification with China?
The decision on Taiwan’s future — be it independence, unification or the “status quo” — lies in the hands of Taiwanese. It is not a subject that the Taiwanese people have authorized the president to decide unilaterally, nor a subject that should be influenced by what people on the other side of the Strait believe.
During campaigning and when delivering major speeches, Ma often states that “Taiwan’s future should be decided by its 23 million people.”
This wording sounds democratic and shows respect for the idea that Taiwanese should determine the country’s fate.
Ma’s remarks in the Wall Street Journal interview, however, confirm that he wants eventual unification with China.
Ironically, amid the brouhaha over Ma’s remarks on a “unification” timetable, a new survey has provided more troubling food for thought for the president.
In the latest CommonWealth magazine poll on Tuesday, 62 percent of those surveyed said they consider themselves Taiwanese, 22 percent said they see themselves as both Taiwanese and Chinese, while a mere 8 percent said they regard themselves as Chinese.
Of particular interest is the finding that among respondents aged 18 to 29, 75 percent described themselves as Taiwanese.
As the saying goes: “There go the people, I must follow them, for I am their leader.”
Ma, as the nation’s highest elected official, should heed mainstream opinion rather than act unilaterally and obstinately.
Only this way will he have the chance to serve another term as president.
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS