To protect their national interests, it is necessary for heads of state to keep as many options open as possible and avoid making hard and fast comments. The US cannot make any concrete comments about whether it would dispatch military forces to defend Taiwan, should the need arise, nor can Taiwan make definitive comments about not asking the US for such assistance.
However, in a recent interview with CNN, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), being the genius “chief executive” of the “Taiwan region” that he is, of his own accord said he would never ask the US to go to war for Taiwan. He later said that this was his way of emphasizing to the US Taiwan’s resolve to defend itself as well as his confidence that there will not be a war in the Taiwan Strait during his time in office. What this really shows is that Ma is moving increasingly closer to China.
From the time that dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) fled to Taiwan until the end of former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) time in office, the US never questioned Taiwan’s determination to protect itself. The US wants to maintain the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait and has no desire to get involved in a war here. This is why the US stopped the Chiangs’ ambitions of “reconquering the mainland” and restricted the pro-independence administrations of former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen from moving too close to achieving de jure independence.
Ma’s recent moves toward “eventual unification” and his willingness to change the “status quo” and accept a Chinese takeover has certain US academics worried about Taiwan’s determination to defend itself and whether it is worth risking conflict with China over Taiwan.
If Ma wants to express his determination to give Taiwan the capabilities to protect itself, he could make a strong case based both on Taiwan’s interests and on the common interests of Taiwan and the US. Ma has, however, chosen to say that Taiwan is not worth the risk and that Taiwan is a domestic Chinese political issue.
If China wants to annex Taiwan, it can do so either by military force or by peaceful means. At the same time, Taiwan can use military force or peaceful means to defend itself. If China resorted to force, it would have to consider US intervention as the price it would have to pay, as well as the serious ramifications of this. For the past 60 years, US deterrence has provided the biggest guarantee for maintaining the cross-strait “status quo.”
Ma’s going on about self-defense is irresponsible. When it comes to military self-defense, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has blocked the procurement of arms in the past, and in terms of diplomatic defense, Ma has bowed down before the “one China” principle. He has also allowed flights between Taiwan and China to be carried out as though they are domestic flights and accepted observer status for Taiwan at the World Health Assembly under the name of “Chinese Taipei.” Ma has completely given up on defending Taiwan’s sovereignty. So what use is his talk about self-defense?
If China can use “peaceful” means to annex Taiwan, why would it have to resort to military force? And if China does not need to resort to military force, why would Ma need Taiwan to protect itself? If Ma is not even willing to protect Taiwan in the face of China’s “peaceful” attack, how can we expect him to defend Taiwan militarily? Everything Ma is doing is leading Taiwan into the tiger’s den, and he is becoming the “chief executive.”
James Wang is a media commentator.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
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