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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS