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?
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS