On May 11, the Wall Street Journal published an extensive interview with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), in which Ma defended the rapprochement he has forged with China, saying that the closer ties have boosted Taiwan’s economy and security, and should not be tampered with by his successor.
The problem with Ma’s account is that his policies have severely undermined Taiwan’s sovereignty, democracy, security and international space. Like the fictional Peter Pan in J.M. Barrie’s tale, Ma is putting a glossy glow over events and development, while his policies have pushed Taiwan into the unwelcome economic embrace of a repressive China.
In the very beginning of the interview, Ma contends that “[The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT)] election defeat last year [in the Nov. 29 municipal elections] was not related to our mainland policy.”
Ma must not have read the major international publications at the time: The Wall Street Journal concluded: “Taiwanese Electoral Rebuke, A landslide verdict against growing dependence on China,” while CNN headlined: “Taiwan’s ‘black Saturday’ election: A rebuke to China.”
The problem with Ma’s policies toward China is that they have been conducted under a “one China” premise that considers Taiwan to be part of “China,” and just about everyone around the world considers the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to be “China.”
Ma’s definition of “China” as the old “Republic of China” lost traction way back in the 1960s and must be relegated to Never Never Land.
While Ma’s fictionalism might have given the international community the false idea that cross-strait relations are easing, the reality is that the PRC’s designs to incorporate Taiwan are now colliding with the desire of the great majority of Taiwanese to remain a free and democratic nation that is accepted by the international community as a full and equal member.
Ma’s make-believe also includes his assertion that trade agreements with China are a necessary precursor to trade agreements with other nations, in particular that the proposed cross-strait service trade agreement with China — which was derailed by last year’s Sunflower movement — will boost Taiwan’s chances of joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Nothing is further from the truth: Taiwan needs to apply on its own strength and its own merits. It needs to work hard to push through structural economic reforms so it meets the high standards of the TPP. China is not even in the TPP and it would be outrageous if it could veto the accession of other states.
So, instead of acquiescing in, or even abetting, Taiwan’s growing dependence on China, Ma — as president of the nation — should have strengthened Taiwan’s self-reliance. It is a proud, free and democratic nation that has been pushed into diplomatic isolation by the grandiose, but short-sighted, “one China” fictions of the KMT of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石).
The developments after Taiwan’s momentous transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s show that Taiwanese want to live in peace in a nation they can call their own. Yes, they want a “status quo,” but one defined by the democracy and freedom they presently enjoy.
They want one in which they elect their own president and government, and where the government is responsive to its citizens. Not a nebulous “status quo” in which they are considered second-class international citizens, or where their peace and stability is determined by the whims of rulers in Beijing.
Mark Kao is president of the Washington-based Formosan Association for Public Affairs.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion