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.]
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