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
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