During a talk on cross-strait relations and international law at Soochow University in Taipei on Tuesday, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) commented on the possibility of Taiwanese independence, comments which were more illuminating about the past than the future.
Ma reiterated his stance on unification with China, as if it needed clarification — Ma is all for it.
Taiwanese independence has nowhere to go and there is no need for it. Even if there were, it is unachievable, he said.
Chinese communists have put “peaceful unification” on the table. Taiwanese can just bide their time and things will progress accordingly, he said.
Good things come to those who wait.
Ma prefers the word “unification,” which does sound palatable. The word suggests unity, a coming together of equal parties working toward a mutually beneficial future.
The word annexation would be closer to the truth. Taking over. Swallowing up. Devouring.
In addition to promising peace, Beijing should offer to proceed using democratic processes, Ma added.
If Taiwanese do not choose unification, then we can just maintain peace and try again later when the time is right.
When Ma was president, he followed a “three noes” policy: no unification, no independence and no use of force. He discounted independence, but was not willing to talk about unification explicitly, because the time would come when it would happen naturally.
That being the case, why use force?
As president, he said that he was putting Taiwan first; what he was actually doing was setting out the conditions for eventual peaceful unification.
Now he is disingenuously suggesting that making this happen through a democratic process is a viable option for Taiwanese and Chinese alike.
Where has he been? Does he not know that the vast majority of Taiwanese identify with Taiwan, not China? Does he not remember the routing his party, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), was subjected to at the hands of an electorate that resoundingly rejected his pro-China stance?
He also criticized the Democratic Progressive Party’s Resolution on Taiwan’s Future (台灣前途決議文) for its contradiction, saying that Taiwan is a sovereign, independent nation that is called the Republic of China (ROC).
He is right. There is a glaring contradiction. He did not mention that its tenaciousness was due in large part to his own party’s refusal to let the ROC fade into history where it belongs.
However, the best part of his talk was when he said that the majority of the rights that Taiwanese independence advocates want have already been realized.
Again, he is right. The problem is that these rights — democracy and human rights, for starters — have come about not because of his party and its stranglehold over Taiwan, but in spite of it, and only grudgingly conceded when Taiwanese made it clear they would not take no for an answer.
These hard-won rights are also precisely what Taiwanese fear would be taken away should China swallow the nation.
Ma is justified in expressing his opinion that independence is unachievable. It would certainly take a more skilled politician than himself to achieve it.
To suggest that unification is a desirable option that can be achieved through democratic means and would be equal in any way is utterly disingenuous. His position on this coheres perfectly with the direction in which he steered Taiwan while president.
Ma’s surname means “horse” and indeed, he acts like a Trojan horse.
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS