Make a choice — stop Ma
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) thanks-but-no-thanks to future US military involvement in the Taiwan Strait promises to outlive all assurances his administration will be providing to Washington externally and Taiwanese internally. The simple reason is that the prime beneficiary of the deliberate remark is China, the nation toward which Ma is diligently prodding Taiwan.
That declaration went further than just punctuating a CNN interview, in which Ma went to some length to convince the West that the incorporation of Taiwan’s economy into China’s would advance both the causes of international trade and regional peace. It became difficult to resist the impression that Ma is promoting the myth of a peaceful and voluntary surrender of Taiwan to China.
Ma’s unification dream is shared by only a fraction of the Taiwanese population. This is evidenced by public polls, conducted by both pro-Taiwan and pro-China organizations, invariably showing that an overwhelming majority of Taiwanese favoring an indefinite separation of Taiwan from China.
Taiwanese consciousness, the sentiment that most succinctly reflects Taiwanese longing for formal sovereignty, actually rose in the last two years in spite of Ma and his Chinese National Party’s (KMT) constant attempt to ignore, if not suppress it. Democracy and freedom, both integral to sovereignty when Taiwan is facing an authoritarian China as its sole external enemy, are ingrained in Taiwanese daily life.
Therefore, any illusion that the absorption of Taiwan into China will be peaceful and painless should have evaporated the moment Beijing promulgated its “Anti-Secession” Law, the Chinese statute that outlaws Taiwan’s sovereignty and its advocacy as well as spelling out conditions necessitating China’s use of force against Taiwan.
Ma and the KMT have been trying to drive a wedge among Taiwanese by using economic bait with some success. However, the resulting and widening gulf between the haves and have-nots will only sow more seeds of instability.
It is unfortunate the collective memory of Taiwan’s last transfer of rule of similar magnitude at the end of World War II has all but faded away, even though the suffering lasted at least two generations for Taiwanese.
Taiwanese didn’t have a choice then, but Taiwanese have a choice now, albeit one that would require considerable sacrifices not unlike prices with which other societies pay for their freedom.
Significantly, the dynamics involved in Taiwan’s status are far more complex today than the time of the last “sky change” more than 60 years ago.
Ma’s push-away of the US may have negated the ambiguity of the Taiwan Relations’ Act that obviously helped to maintain tranquility in the region for decades. Yet, the strategic significance of Taiwan to the US-Japan alliance remains unchanged.
Simply put, peaceful annexation of Taiwan by China will never happen. Instead, the path of least resistance would dictate that Taiwan be put through an indefinite period of turmoil before — and if — all powers involved can forge a formula for the status of Taiwan that could guarantee regional stability.
Taiwanese are facing two clear options: Stop Ma and the KMT now or prepare to endure being a forsaken nation that is perpetuated by external forces.
HUANG JEI-HSUAN
California
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS