People in the international community who continue to believe that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) policies secure Taiwan’s unique position in the world must suffer from collective tomfoolery.
Such pluralistic ignorance is widespread because almost everyone has praised Ma’s efforts in creating peace across the Taiwan Strait, defending Taiwan’s international position and fighting for its democracy. Those who know no better follow the crowd in believing that his achievements are beyond reproach.
However, it is encouraging to see that some people are coming to realize that they have been victims of pluralistic ignorance and have been misled by government information. The abundance of statements and policies from Ma and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government that are leading Taiwan closer to China have caused this realization.
This direction is hard to ignore and, moreover, it is becoming increasingly clear that China has the upper hand.
Recently, the international community has been getting the impression that the relationship between Taiwan and China is growing more intimate and that Taiwan might become a part of China in the not too distant future because of the KMT’s “one country two areas (一國兩區)” proposal, which resembles China’s “one country, two systems (一國兩制)” formula.
It is also puzzling to many that the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) has not been officially registered at the WTO. Consequently, the ECFA is interpreted as a local Chinese agreement. Moreover, it has been noticed that Taiwan is listed as a province of China by the WHO. Even Taiwan’s apparent initiative to establish free-trade agreements (FTAs) with New Zealand and Singapore is considered possible only because China has already inked FTAs with both countries.
EU diplomats would confirm that seeking a free-trade pact with the EU is a fruitless endeavor because the EU has not even started FTA negotiations with Beijing.
However, now that EU politicians have noticed that Taiwan has fallen in the international democratic rankings and international observers concluded that the January election was “mostly free, but partly unfair,” the awakening from pluralistic ignorance has received a boost.
The same politicians might be worrying even more since Ma said he viewed the issue of Chinese dissidents from the point of view of traditional Chinese values, not Western human rights. Does Ma believe that Chinese values are contrary to Western human rights? What do “Western human rights” mean to him? The human rights accords of Western countries are typically based on the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so are Ma’s views opposed to the UN’s?
When it comes to Taiwan’s military defense, the international community might also start questioning how Taiwan plans to defend itself. It is disturbing that Ma has apparently hinted that Taiwan does not need the upgrade for its old F-16s that the US has offered.
Collective tomfoolery must be avoided, even if it is hard to admit that the policies of Taiwan’s government no longer match its earlier ideals and that Taiwan is not the great Asian model it once was. The way out of this conundrum is to listen to and support Taiwanese and defend Taiwan’s democracy.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner.
[Editor’s note: President Ma never hinted that Taiwan does not need an upgrade for the F-16A/Bs, a package that was notified to US Congress in September last year and for which the Ministry of National Defense is expected to sign the letter of agreement by the end of next month. Where the Ma administration appears to be having second thoughts is on the issue of the F-16C/Ds, which Washington has yet to make available.]
Would China attack Taiwan during the American lame duck period? For months, there have been worries that Beijing would seek to take advantage of an American president slowed by age and a potentially chaotic transition to make a move on Taiwan. In the wake of an American election that ended without drama, that far-fetched scenario will likely prove purely hypothetical. But there is a crisis brewing elsewhere in Asia — one with which US president-elect Donald Trump may have to deal during his first days in office. Tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea have been at
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
Historically, in Taiwan, and in present-day China, many people advocate the idea of a “great Chinese nation.” It is not worth arguing with extremists to say that the so-called “great Chinese nation” is a fabricated political myth rather than an academic term. Rather, they should read the following excerpt from Chinese writer Lin Yutang’s (林語堂) book My Country and My People: “It is also inevitable that I should offend many writers about China, especially my own countrymen and great patriots. These great patriots — I have nothing to do with them, for their god is not my god, and their patriotism is
RSS