Since before being elected, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has advocated a gradual development of cross-strait relations, prioritizing the private over the public sector, business over politics and simplicity over complexity. He has now suggested that a cross-strait peace agreement be signed, shifting the focus of the presidential election campaign to the issue of cross-strait relations. Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), who has avoided the cross-strait battleground, has been forced to follow in a move that could turn next year’s presidential election into a peace agreement referendum.
A peace pact was first suggested during the first meeting between former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) in 2005, and it has been added to the KMT charter. Ma then suggested it again in 2008. However, this is a sensitive issue, and although the DPP has its doubts and is opposed to it, it has avoided discussing it. When Ma first repeated the suggestion, he offered no details of what it would entail and nothing came of it. This time he comes better prepared, and by suggesting it, he is both challenging the DPP and showing China his cards.
Although Ma proposed the agreement as part of his “Golden Decade” vision, he has presented neither content nor timetable. He has also said that public support, national need and legislative supervision are three prerequisites for such a pact. He clearly wants to lure the DPP into a fight over cross-strait relations, but he has made sure he has a lot of leeway for tactical maneuvering.
Ma’s original proposal was eventual unification, so no one should be surprised that he is slowly moving toward that goal. Some of the documents published by WikiLeaks made it clear that while China agreed to policies beneficial to the KMT government, such as the three direct links, allowing Chinese tourists to visit Taiwan and Chinese officials to lead procurement delegations to Taiwan, it also applied constant pressure on Ma to quickly enter into political talks. Now that Ma is proposing a peace agreement, he is letting China know where he stands and asking it to offer a few more benefits to help the KMT campaign.
A government’s policy is also its vision, so the DPP immediately attacked the suggestion, while public opinion is split. Tsai issued a statement describing Ma’s proposal as rash, reckless, disrespectful of public opinion and a political tactic. She said such an agreement posed four great dangers: It could sacrifice Taiwanese sovereignty, change the “status quo,” put democracy at risk and destroy the strategic depth in cross-strait negotiations.
Furthermore, while no one would oppose cross-strait peace, Ma shrinks back in the face of Beijing and is afraid of protecting Taiwan’s sovereignty. If he represents Taiwan in talks with Beijing, that would be sending a lamb to slaughter.
On first glance, Ma may seem to have proposed a new cross-strait framework that might even become a milestone in cross-strait relations. Alas, he is firing blanks. Talks about a peace pact must contain a clear definition of the cross-strait relationship. The so-called “1992 consensus” on whose meaning the two sides cannot agree will not work: China’s “one China” is unacceptable to Taiwan and Taiwan’s Republic of China is unacceptable to China, while public opinion is divided on the current status of cross-strait relations. Thus, there will be no public support. Nor is the national need very urgent, since most people want to maintain the current “status quo.”
As for the legislature’s role, not a single cross-strait agreement signed under the Ma administration has been submitted to legislative supervision or even simple legislative recognition (ie, deliberations were delayed by the KMT majority until the agreements took effect by default). This makes it very unlikely that Ma’s three prerequisites will ever be met. The peace agreement, then, is simply a non-issue that will produce no results.
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