Representative to the US King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) reportedly said in an interview with Agence France-Presse last week that Taiwan would like to maintain “strategic ambiguity” in dealing with Beijing and Washington (“Washington envoy interview stresses ‘strategic ambiguity,’” Feb. 5, page 3).
King’s claim has raised discussion about Taipei’s strategy, with some arguing that as Taiwan is not an international power like the US, it may not have such an option.
The strategy makes sense on the surface, since one may see nothing wrong with maintaining positive relationships with China, Japan and the US at the same time, and some say this is imperative for a small nation such as Taiwan.
However, it also reflected one of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) biggest weaknesses — that he always tries to please everyone and often avoids “choosing sides,” and when he does, he tends to make questionable decisions.
In 1992, when Taiwan was embroiled in discussions over the electoral format of the presidential election, Ma supported indirect elections rather than direct elections, which, ironically, were what led to him becoming the head of state 16 years later.
Since Ma first took office in 2008, most of his major policies, domestic or foreign, have raised similar doubts.
While Ma pledged to be a president for all, his tax and labor policies have tended to favor employers over employees, and his pension reform plan seems to favor public sector workers, disappointing private sector workers.
Ma also pledged to seek closer relations with China (which he did), as well as to maintain collaborative relationships with two of Taiwan’s most important allies, Japan and the US, although he seems to be doing the opposite. Both nations have raised concerns about Taiwan’s stance on the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台) dispute and have found it difficult to accept Ma’s reassurances of non-cooperation with Beijing on the issue.
At the same time that Ma was struggling with decisionmaking and choosing sides, so were Taiwanese. Asked about their opinions on almost any given topic, a large number of Taiwanese are likely to answer with: “I could not care less about politics and I’m either pro-green or pro-blue…”
Let us make it clear that politicians and national leaders should avoid making decisions based purely on populism, which appears to be a stigmatized political term, but neither should all policies please just one side and sacrifice the other.
However, when it comes to the struggle between the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor, as well as that between democracy and authoritarianism, decisions should not be too hard to make.
As much as it may be a trendy term, and easily rolls off a diplomat’s tongue, the foreign policy phrase “strategic ambiguity” is too ambiguous for Taiwan, which has been overly ambiguous on too many issues, such as the Constitution, tax structure, engagement with China and human rights.
People and countries cannot move forward or thrive based on ambiguity and an avoidance of decisionmaking; they have to act on what they believe in and what their values are.
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality,” former South African archbishop Desmond Tutu said.
Tutu’s quotation rings true for Ma and the people of Taiwan. How history will view Ma and Taiwanese will be determined by every decision they make and whose side they are on at specific moments. There should be no ambiguity in that.
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
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
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
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 —
RSS