President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) on May 12 conducted a teleconference with the US’ Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Although Ma focused on his “three strategies” — to institutionalize the cross-strait reconciliation process, increase Taiwan’s contribution to international development and fuse national defense with diplomacy — he clearly stated the connection between the Taiwan Relations Act and the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China (ROC), buttering up US academics by praising the US as a long-time ally. The ultimate goal was to treat the Taiwan issue as part of the Chinese Civil War at an international event.
Ma promoted the benefits that his reconciliation with China would bring to international business, and followed Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in repeating the term “responsible stakeholder.” He seemed to have suddenly corrected his view that Taiwan should “move toward China, and then move toward the world through China” and instead agreed with Tsai’s strategy of “moving toward the world, and then moving toward China together with the world.”
However, not only did Ma conceal premises to the three strategies such as “under the framework of the ROC Constitution” and the so-called “1992 consensus,” he also ended his speech by stressing that “a country’s national security strategies must be based on full domestic political support. Our national security policies are based on the understanding that the ROC and its Constitution will never be altered.”
Obviously, Taiwan’s national security would mean nothing to Ma if there were no identification with China — Ma used the phrase “never-changing” to reinforce the importance of this. Ma’s frequent mention of “Taiwan’s democracy” and “responsible stakeholder” were simply cover-ups. And this isn’t just talk. The Ma government and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) have agreed to the WHO’s definition of Taiwan as a province of China.
When UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in 2007 misinterpreted the UN’s General Assembly Resolution 2758 as meaning that the UN had recognized Taiwan as being a part of China, the US and Japan immediately denounced him for it. Then, when former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) pushed for a referendum on self-determination in 2008, the US forced him to suppress the referendum, saying it would constitute a unilateral change to Taiwan’s status. Paying a heavy price, Taiwanese have learned a painful lesson: The “status quo” may not be changed unilaterally and they must play the role of the responsible stakeholder.
On the contrary, while the Ma government and the KMT have talked loudly about democracy, not being a troublemaker and not causing any unexpected incidents, they were also carrying out secret diplomacy; stealthily and unilaterally changing Taiwan’s status — replacing the view that neither Taiwan nor the ROC are sovereign states to one in which Taiwan is a province of China.
What Taiwanese do not understand is why Chen, who also tried to change the situation unilaterally, was sent to prison even before his changes had an effect, while the US praises Ma and says nothing even as Ma implements his unilateral changes and even as they are beginning to have an effect.
Taiwan’s status has a profound influence on US and Japanese security. As confused as the US’ diplomatic logic is now, how could it be able to lead Asian countries?
HoonTing is an independent Taiwanese researcher focusing on the issue of Taiwan’s status.
TRANSLATED BY KATHERINE WEI
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s