For the most part, fans of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) continue to blindly admire him no matter what happens. They only stop short of shouting “long live our heroic leader,” as people did in the bad old days of dictatorship. Ma says that Taiwan’s relations with the US are better than ever, that relations across the Taiwan Strait are more harmonious than ever, and that “the other side of the Strait” (read: China) has shown Taiwan lots of “goodwill.” He tells us that all is well and his faithful followers believe every word of it.
It is ironic that US Vice President Joe Biden has chosen today as his date of arrival in Beijing for his current visit to China. The timing is like a double slap in the face for Ma — one slap from Washington and another from Beijing.
Exactly 29 years have passed since the US and China signed the Aug. 17 Communique, in which the US accepted limits on the quantity and quality of its arms sales to Taiwan and agreed not to pursue policies recognizing “one China, one Taiwan” or “two Chinas.”
This communique amounted to putting pressure on then-president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) to surrender to China and came as a great shock to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
Out of all the days in the year, Biden had to choose Aug. 17 to arrive in Beijing, yet Ma, apparently oblivious to the significance of this date, seems to think he has a special place in the hearts of both US and Chinese leaders.
In 1978, then-US president Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski picked May 20, the day of Chiang’s inauguration as president, to visit Beijing — a classic joint insult by the US and China to Chiang and the “Republic of China.” At the time, Taiwan’s embassy in Washington mobilized friendly members of the US Congress to lambaste the Carter administration over the incident.
The date of Biden’s arrival in Beijing was reportedly China’s decision, but Biden, having served on the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee for many years and having experienced the controversy that followed the signing of the Aug. 17 Communique, could hardly be unaware of the message Beijing intends to convey.
On his trip to Beijing today, even if he does not tell the Chinese side what the US has decided regarding arms sales to Taiwan, as media reports have been guessing, China is sure to use the opportunity to rub salt into Taiwan’s wounds by demanding that the US stick to the terms of the communique and refrain from interfering in what China considers to be its “internal affairs.”
Biden and the US Department of State are well aware of the tricks China is playing, but they are willing to play along according to China’s script. What is that, if not a double slap in the face for Ma?
After the KMT government retreated to exile in Taiwan, the focus of its diplomatic policy was on keeping its seat in the UN and maintaining good relations with the US. After the US broke off diplomatic relations in 1979, Chiang did all he could to ensure continued US arms sales to Taiwan and uphold national security.
Now it is a different story, as Taiwan’s national identity is watered down bit by bit under the Ma administration. As far as this government is concerned, China’s wish is its command in all matters of foreign policy. Taiwanese diplomats abroad get paid well for sitting around all day and doing hardly anything useful.
Perhaps we should ask our government the same thing that media critics asked then-foreign minister Wei Tao-ming (魏道明) in 1971 when Taiwan lost its UN seat — what kind of foreign policy do you call this?
James Wang is a journalist based in Washington.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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