President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) raised concerns when he said the idea of Taiwan and China functioning as separate governments within a “one China” framework could be up for discussion. The Presidential Office quickly clarified that what he meant was that the idea should be discussed on an academic level, not in cross-strait negotiations anytime soon. That did little to ameliorate the concerns of critics, and rightly so.
Ma’s statements, even as bland as they are, cause concern because he suffers from a credibility gap that no amount of platitudes or photo opportunities can bridge. It is a gap that keeps growing. To be fair, however, it is not a gap that is his alone; he shares it with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
His “separate governments in a ‘one China’ framework” comment raised hackles because of the dense fog that has surrounded cross-strait negotiations since Ma took office, with the accompanying lack of legislative oversight of the talks and the use of “semi-official” bodies to give his government credit when he wants it, and plausible denial when he needs it.
All those KMT-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) lovefests have not helped either, given the pronouncements that have emanated from them. Honorary chairmen and other KMT members appear to have forgotten that they live in a multi-party nation, not the one-party state they grew up in or the single-party China they apparently aspire to. There are clear indications that much of the cross-strait agenda is dictated by Beijing, with input from Taipei.
Ma wants to take credit for inspiring more academics to think about cross-strait issues, but the problem is he only appears interested in what Chinese academics or those in his own chorus line have to say. He has either turned a deaf ear to those who have queried any of his policies or — in the case of an open letter from 34 academics and other experts about the probe into “missing official documents” from former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) era — had his aides brush aside the concerns on the grounds that the signatories were foreigners who really did not (ie, could not) understand Taiwan-China relations or were interfering in Taiwan’s judicial affairs, thereby impinging upon its sovereignty.
It is the same credibility gap that made his posing in the cockpit of an upgraded Indigenous Defence Fighter (IDF) on Thursday look ridiculous. The revamping of the IDFs’ avionics and flight control systems cannot make up for the air force’s limited number of fighter jets and the overall reduced capabilities of the military — not when compared with the rapidly modernizing People’s Liberation Army.
The shameful lack of military readiness cannot be laid solely on Ma’s concessionary “make talk, not war” mindset, but the blame can and should be put squarely on the KMT’s shoulders. It was unwilling to vote for any major defense packages during the eight years Chen was in office, simply as part of its efforts to kill any legislation that might be seen as giving Chen’s administration an advantage, regardless of whether the nation needed it or not.
In poll after poll, a vast majority of Taiwanese have said no to Beijing’s “one country, two systems” principle in any way, shape or form. Despite China’s economic blandishments, they are satisfied with the “status quo.” And why not, when Beijing’s repressive government and the escalating number of ecological disasters make the vaunted “economic miracle” along China’s east coast look more like a Potomkin village with each passing year — and each successive anti-graft drive in the CCP.
That brings up the final plank in Ma’s credibility gap. Despite repeated pledges, he has been unable to reform the KMT or Taiwan’s “black gold” politics. His administration’s only real “success” in its anti-graft efforts has been the jailing of Chen — and the indictment of former president, and the KMT’s other archnemesis, Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
Please mind the gaps.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent