The Taiwan Strait can certainly be characterized as “troubled waters.” Ever since the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) defeated troops retreated to Taiwan at the end of the civil war, there has been tension across the strait, first because of Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) dreams of “recovering the mainland” and more recently because of Beiing’s insistence that Taiwan is part of China.
It is interesting that the KMT has now started to refer to its efforts at reconciliation as a “bridge over troubled waters.” Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Minister Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) used the term in a recent speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington.
Let us ponder for a moment what kind of bridge this might be.
The main component of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) “bridge” is the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). Lai said that contrary to the perception that the ECFA sets a dangerous precedent, it actually reduces danger by establishing peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.
How true is this?
Lai also said that China continues to stockpile missiles and is unwilling to renounce the use of military force against Taiwan. The Chinese government has taken no action to dialdown its military threat, while pressuring the US to end arms sales to Taiwan.
Even if China were to consider a reduction in its military buildup, it would only do so if Taiwan agreed to the so-called “one China” principle. Interestingly, when a reporter from Hong Kong asked for Lai’s view on this, she responded that there should be “no political preconditions.”
If that is the case, why did the Ma administration agree to the “one China” principle and the so-called “1992 Consensus” in the run-up to signing the ECFA? Hasn’t it already drifted into China’s orbit at the expense of Taiwan’s sovereignty and autonomy?
This part of the bridge looks rather shaky.
In her AEI speech, Lai said the public was fully behind the Ma administration’s initiatives. She produced various opinion polls showing 79.3 percent support for institutionalized cross-strait relations, 73 percent for an Intellectual Property Rights agreement and 61.1 percent for the ECFA.
However, if this broad support is really there, why does Ma continue to block the referendum proposal on the ECFA submitted by the Taiwan Solidarity Union and supported by the Democratic Progressive Party?
Wouldn’t the outcome of such a referendum validate their optimism. We have a hunch that the reality is quite different and that people continue to have major reservations.
Ma is clearly afraid to allow the people to speak for themselves, another piece of the bridge that is rather wobbly.
If Taiwan wants to maintain its hard-earned democracy and freedom, there needs to be more transparency and checks and balances on the government’s policies toward China.
Ironically, Lai also said that there had been “a high level of transparency” and “better communication and discussion of views” with the public. These are nice words, but they are untrue.
The Ma administration has pushed ahead with its policies without first seeking consensus in Taiwan. This is the third part of the bridge with major defects.
Taiwan’s future needs to be built on a sturdy foundation. It needs to be built on the principles of democracy, freedom and human rights. Only when those are adhered to can there be a true “bridge over troubled waters.”
Jean Wu is a graduate in diplomacy and international relations from Seton Hall University in New Jersey. Susan Wang is an undergraduate student in international development studies at McGill University, Montreal. Both work at the Formosan Association for Public Affairs in Washington.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS