President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) often asks his critics why they question his determination to uphold Taiwan’s national interests and dignity as a sovereign nation. A review of some of his remarks will perhaps provide the president with a hint as to why so many people continue to remain stubbornly unconvinced.
On Monday, when meeting with Texas Governor Rich Perry, Ma referred to Taiwan as a “province” when speaking of the sister-state relations between Taiwan and Texas. Even though Resolution 81(R) HR, 1593 passed last June by the Texas House of Representatives, describes the link between Texas and Taiwan as a “sister-state relationship,” Ma chose to say “sister state and sister province” relationship when he expressed gratitude to the governor over the passage of the resolution.
This is not the first time that Ma has referred to Taiwan as a region when meeting with visiting guests. Since taking office in May 2008, Ma has informed the foreign press that his government does not subscribe to the “state-to-state theory.” This idea was first put forward in 1999 by then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) to define Taiwan’s relations with China as a “special state-to-state relationship,” and was elaborated on in 2000 by then-president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) description of Taiwan and China as “one country on each side [of the Taiwan Strait].”
Ma rationalized his reduction of Taiwan to an “area” by stressing his government’s adherence to the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution, which states that the ROC is an independent, sovereign state whose territory includes China. Hence, Ma said the relationship between Taiwan and China is one of two regions, with Taiwan, a province, known as the “Taiwan area,” and China as “the mainland area.”
Interestingly, Ma does not refer to Taiwan as a province when talking to local audiences. Whenever elections are closing in and campaigning steps into high gear, voters can hear Ma, along with other Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) heavyweights, roaring slogans that trumpet the name Taiwan. Whenever they mention Taiwan in their campaign speeches, the electorate assumes that the word “Taiwan” implies the country for which the official name is the ROC.
Given that his definition of the word “Taiwan” seems to depend on the occasion, it is no wonder there is continued public doubt over Ma’s dedication to safeguarding the country’s dignity as a sovereign state. If Ma wants to be clear about his meaning, in future whenever he talks to the people of Taiwan and uses the appellation “Taiwan,” he should not do so in shorthand, but rather use the term “Taiwan Province,” as he so clearly did with the Texas governor.
Adding to the public’s confusion over the Ma administration’s perception of Taiwan’s status comes a surprising account of the cross-strait relationship from a member of Ma’s own KMT.
On Friday, KMT caucus secretary-general Lin Hung-chih (林鴻池) said that the legislature, instead of reviewing the economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) article by article, could only vote to accept or reject the pact because the planned cross-strait trade agreement should be seen as a “quasi-international agreement between two countries.”
In light of these issues, how are Taiwanese to be persuaded that the Ma administration will work to safeguard Taiwan’s sovereignty and dignity when Ma and members of his KMT continually vacillate on their understanding of Taiwan’s status?
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS