There are a number of people with deep blue convictions who fully support President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) policy of capitulation to China. Some of them even say he should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Back in the real world, the similarities between Ma and the ill-fated last Ming emperor are all too obvious.
The Nobel Peace Prize might have become cheapened of late, but not to the extent that it should be awarded to a politician who would sacrifice freedom, democracy and human rights to a communist dictatorship.
Former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher did the same thing when she ceded the territory of Hong Kong to China, which is an undemocratic country with no respect for human rights — and I don’t recall her being nominated for the prize.
Taiwan is a democracy, but only as a result of the sacrifice and struggle of a colonized people: It was not easily come by.
All Taiwan wants is to maintain its autonomy, and it has no wish to threaten any other nation. Any politician that sacrifices Taiwan’s democracy and allows it to become a colony of totalitarian China would be worse than the last Ming emperor. What sense would the peace prize nomination make then?
China lovers could even consider Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) for nomination. He fits the bill perfectly and the prize would surely be his for the taking.
The Chinese seem to be good at casting things in a rosy light. It has certainly happened before.
Former Chinese paramount leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) circumvented using the words “communist dictatorship” with Orwellian aplomb, coining the phrase “socialism with Chinese characteristics.”
His move toward a capitalist model, leading the Chinese economy to a turn in fortunes, was dubbed China’s “rise.”
Hu is quite happy to bounce along the capitalist road and watch his country’s “rise,” but we all know that “Chinese characteristics” under a one-party dictatorship is, by any name, the sacrifice of democracy and the suppression of human rights.
Every moment of every day Beijing is in a state of paranoia about independence for Taiwan, Xinjiang and Tibet, afraid that people will call for freedom, democracy and human rights. If China is rising and becoming such a “great nation,” why would so many people be demanding independence?
This is one of those “rare historic opportunities” that Hu has talked of.
He should change his approach and adopt the magnanimity befitting a great nation. It would reinvent China’s image in an instant.
He could embrace a democratic system, guarantee human rights, respect the choice of the Taiwanese people and welcome the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet and Rebiya Kadeer, the exiled Uighur leader, to Xinjiang, allowing self-rule for those regions.
A great nation on the rise should be able to demonstrate this kind of confidence.
If US President Barack Obama could win the Nobel Peace Prize, what is to stop Hu being nominated?
It wouldn’t hurt China to drop the idea of unification and allow Taiwan de jure independence, respecting the choice of Taiwanese.
Both sides would gain a peaceful co-existence, Hu would win the Nobel Peace Prize and Ma could avoid going down in history as a “last emperor.”
Now that’s what I call a win-win situation.
James Wang is a media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
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