Former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) statement to a Deutsche Welle reporter that the cross-strait relationship was a state-to-state relationship or a special state-to-state relationship may have been legally flawed, but his aim and logic were abundantly clear.
When President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) drew parallels between the two Germanys and the cross-strait situation when speaking to German visitors, he had no idea what he was talking about.
After its defeat in World War II, Germany was occupied by the Allied forces and its division was forced to accommodate the US and Russia, making it a prototypical divided country.
Taiwan, on the other hand, was ceded by the Qing Empire to Japan, which Tokyo later renounced in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Legally speaking, Taiwan did not belong to China and so it stands to reason that it never seceded from it.
Since there are both fundamental legal and factual differences, the only useful example Taiwan can extract from the German experience is that the two Germanys coexisted peacefully as two sovereign states and that both joined the UN, although they maintained a special state-to-state relationship.
From this perspective, Lee’s special state-to-state dictum is actually a concession because it implies that there are two Chinas and that there is a possibility that the two in the future will merge into one China through peaceful means.
However, Lee’s pragmatic view had been criticized by both China and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) for creating an “independent Taiwan” and “Taiwanese independence.”
The KMT does not recognize that Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state, nor does it promote the view that the relationship between Taiwan and China is a special state-to-state relationship.
That only leaves the unification part of the German comparison, but that part is unacceptable to Taiwan.
The German division was forced and the communist government in East Germany was supported by the Soviet Union which did not want unification.
This problem was not resolved until the weakening of the Soviet Union toward the end of the 1980s, when the East German public voted to join democratic West Germany and return to one united Germany.
The two sides of the Taiwan Strait differ tremendously in both territorial and population size.
In addition, the Chinese communist state aims to annex democratic Taiwan. This is the exact opposite of the situation in East Germany, where the population was only too happy to accept the West German democratic system.
However, even if the Chinese authoritarian system were to collapse, the Chinese people would not likely hold a referendum to join democratic Taiwan.
And even if they were, we have already seen how the incompetent KMT government would be unable to rule such a country.
Ma does not promote the view that Taiwan is a sovereign state, nor does he dare promote the view that the cross-strait relationship is a special state-to-state relationship.
Instead, he accepts the “one China” principle and promotes eventual unification.
Empty talk about the experience of the two Germanys only reinforces the impression that he is supporting China’s ambitions to annex Taiwan and incorporate it into China’s bastardized communist system.
James Wang is a political commentator.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS