As Typhoon Nanmadol threatened Taiwan, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) had other things on his mind, such as what to do about Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). He thought invoking the so-called “1992 consensus” could silence Tsai and the Taiwanese who oppose unification. Apart from banging on about how much he was engaged with the preparations for Nanmadol’s landfall — ignoring the more considerable contributions of others — he called on Tsai to comment on his “three noes” policy: “no unification, no independence and no use of force.”
Tsai need not bother answer his questions, because I can answer them for her. Ma’s “three noes” threaten the “status quo.” Not only do they fail to maintain it, they conspire to obliterate it and perhaps are already doing so.
Let’s look at “no unification” first. On June 10, 2009, Ma announced his intention to stand again for chairman of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The following morning, he gave an interview with CommonWealth Magazine during which, according to an article that appeared in the Chinese state-sponsored media outlet China Review News (CRN) a week later, he singled out the “no unification” part of his three noes. CRN quoted him as saying that “no unification” did not necessarily preclude the option of unification. Apparently, even as he was taking up the post of KMT chairman, Ma was preparing to scrap “no unification.” Perhaps he was respecting the dying wish of his father, Ma Ho-ling (馬鶴凌), inscribed on the latter’s urn: “Replace independence with gradual unification.”
The next “no” is “no independence.” The Republic of China (ROC) was established in 1912. What is the president of the ROC doing declaring that he will not pursue independence? How much more damage can he do to the “status quo” in terms of Taiwanese autonomy and independence? And what of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation?” How does his interpretation differ from China’s? Who can blame Ma for ditching the title of president and the name of the country of which he is president, for “Mr Ma,” head of “Chinese Taipei?”
Finally, we move on to “no use of force.” After several years of KMT bluster following its arrival — having been booted out of China — during which it defiantly insisted that it would take the fight to the “Communist Mainland,” the KMT has been decidedly on the defensive. There was the 823 Artillery Bombardment of 1958, an attempt by China to take Taiwan and even now Taiwan’s armed forces concentrate on defense.
At the same time, China continues to expand its military and aims missiles at Taiwan. If anyone should be giving assurances of “no use of force” it should be China, and Ma should be demanding assurances to that effect. Instead, he promises “no force” of his own accord, with no sign of goodwill from China in response. His “no force” means dismantling the military and handing Taiwan to China.
Ma’s “no unification, no independence and no use of force” is a re-interpretation of the policy of resistance to the Western powers adopted in Guangzhou, China, by the viceroy of Liangguang Ye Mingchen (葉名琛) about 150 years ago. Ye promised “three nots,” namely that he would not fight, not make peace and not run away. He was captured by the British and exiled to India. By asking Taiwan to drop any resistance, Ma is consigning her to colonization by China.
Cross-strait consensus is possible, but it should be a consensus of peace, of mutual benefit. Independence advocate Koo Kwang-ming (辜寬敏) said the relationship should be fraternal and not the unequal, paternal one Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and Ma would have.
Paul Lin is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS