Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) kicked off his US tour in New York yesterday, and of course the major topic was China-Taiwan relations. I was struck by this quote:
“The people of Taiwan elect their own president, parliament and manage their own affairs. Legally it already is a sovereign independent country and there is no need to declare independence a (second) time,” Ma said.
Two points are worth making about this:
- This could have been taken straight out of the DPP’s 1999 Resolution on Taiwan’s Future (check point 1). In fact, of the 7 points in that resolution, I believe Ma would only disagree with the DPP’s position on ‘One China’.
- A common viewpoint (which I’ve never really understood) is that Taiwan enjoys ‘de facto’ independence but is not ‘de jure’ independent. Obviously this is not a viewpoint that Ma (or the DPP) subscribes to.
As I’ve mentioned before, Ma is starting to define a position on China that is lightyears ahead of his predecessor’s in terms of clarity, common sense and acceptability for the people of Taiwan. I don’t think it’s coincidence that the two areas where he seems shaky (arms purchases, and position on ‘One China’ – which is worthy of a separate post) are the two areas that he inherited from Lien Chan.
.
.
.
I’m sorry, David. I’m going to have to disagree with you here. If there is one word to describe Ma’s position — it is not “clarity”.
If he truly believes what you quoted him as saying, then why does his party favour “reunification” (and notice they don’t say “unification”). Why are his actions nearly always balanced towards China’s position? He sometimes gets more references in the Chinese propaganda than in the pan-blue papers combined.
And if he truly believes this statement:
Ma also told the council that Taipei viewed “one China” as the Republic of China (ROC).
“This is the status quo and the majority of people in Taiwan want to maintain the status quo,” he said.
Then why is he not more up in arms over China’s current position — which is that the PRC governs one-China?
Ma may talk the talk, but I will certainly not trust or believe him until his actions match his words. This is the “clarity” that I will look for.
.
.
.
There is no conflict (or lack of clarity) in believing that Taiwan is currently independent and also believing that it should eventually unify with China (incidentally I believe Ma does generally talk about ‘unification’ without the ‘re-‘). Indeed, how can you unify with something if you’re not already independent?
I have absolutely no problem with Ma’s position that he (and so the KMT) favour eventual unification as long as:
a) He clearly states this position so all voters know about it (which he has), and
b) He commits to allowing the people of Taiwan decide on any change (which he has), and
c) He acknowledges that the people of Taiwan can do what they want (change the nations name, declare independence, paint CKS memorial hall green) (which he has)
The point being that his party takes a position, and then lets the people democratically decide whether they agree with it.
As for distortion in the press (esp. in China)? Well of course the Chinese like Ma – what’s their alternative? The New Party?
I do intend to do a post on the whole ‘One China’ thing – so i’ll skip replying on that at the moment 🙂
a) He clearly states this [reunification] position so all voters know about it (which he has)
He has — and he has also stated that there will be no reunification until China becomes democratic (guffaw). But he has not stated how long he will wait before these conditions are met.
b) He commits to allowing the people of Taiwan decide on any change (which he has)
He has, but then why did he go ballistic with the NUC decision — especially after the U.S. clarified that it’s current position (he stated that the U.S. is being fooled). And when will he let the people decide these issues?
c) He acknowledges that the people of Taiwan can do what they want (change the nations name, declare independence, paint CKS memorial hall green) (which he has)
same answer as B.
The point being that his party takes a position, and then lets the people democratically decide whether they agree with it.
How do we know he his party won’t play games like they did in 2004 (with the 2 ballot boxes)? Again, actions speak louder than words, IMO — and the KMT has done quite a bit these last few years to make me believe that they do not respect “democracy” in the least.
As for distortion in the press (esp. in China)? Well of course the Chinese like Ma – what’s their alternative? The New Party?
They just don’t like Ma as “an alternative” — (and that’s being a bit intellectually dishonest, David). They are basically holding hands right now.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And as an addition to my answer in (a) — what effort has been made (or is going to be made) by the KMT to protect this “sovereignty” until China becomes democratic?
All of their actions, rhetoric and policies reflect an inherent “trust” that the PRC will keep its hands off of Taiwan. Nothing the PRC has done in the last 6 years warrants this attitude (unless you don’t really care).
And when the people were called on to decide Taiwan’s fate, what did the PRC do? Launched missiles, uttered threats and enacted an aggressive status-quo changing law.
Ma is either living in a dream world, or he’s got plans that don’t involve the interests of the majority of Taiwanese.
.
.
.
a) He’s stated he’s not sure whether it’ll happen in his lifetime. In other words – he’s willing to wait forever.
b) I don’t agree with everything that Ma’s said about the NUC – but I do think Chen deserves criticism for his actions (as i’ve posted before). Criticising the NUC ‘ceasation’ (is that a word?) hasn’t got much to do with the issue of allowing the people to decide things
c) Same answer as B 🙂
Do you think Ma would act in the same way as Lien? Seriously, I don’t. I agree there are large (influental) parts of the KMT who aren’t seriously commited to democracy – that’s why I’m talking about Ma and not the KMT. It’s my hope that Ma might just drag the KMT kicking and screaming into the 20th century (then we can work on them getting into the 21st century).
I don’t understand your last point. China love Ma because he isn’t Chen Shui-bian. They’d love anyone in opposition to the DPP – hell they even loved Lien Chan! That’s what I meant about ‘no alternative’.
.
.
.
a) He’s stated he’s not sure whether it’ll happen in his lifetime. In other words – he’s willing to wait forever.
Do you think Tawain can wait forever? Does this phrase “wait forever” denote “clarity”?
What if China continues to do what it has been doing (since you seem to believe that Ma is simply an “alternative”)? What if China takes advantage of this “open dialogue” of which he speaks and presses even further towards annexation? What safeguards does Ma propose to prevent this from happening?
Criticising the NUC ‘ceasation’ (is that a word?) hasn’t got much to do with the issue of allowing the people to decide things
Perhaps not, but why is he doing it — especially after the U.S. has made it clear that it is comfortable with it. And he’s not just criticizing the NUC decision. He’s criticizing the U.S. You know, Taiwan’s #1 ally.
Do you think Ma would act in the same way as Lien?
Let me answer this question with another question:
Do you think Ma would stand up to the anti-democratic forces of the KMT? He’s already calling for another truth committe and I don’t think he’s conceded the previous election, has he? And another case in point — 228.
China love Ma because he isn’t Chen
No. China loves Ma because he has the spine of a jellyfish.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BTW, he does indeed use the “reunification” term.
From a recent China Post article:
“This position has been consistent,” Ma said. “We do not push for immediate reunification with the Chinese mainland. Nor do we press for eventual independence”
.
.
.
this is what i would call moving to the center of the voters, and it is easy to do, just follow the common sense and be open minded. i am glad Ma did that and that his effort is appreciated.
if CSB does the same, he should also be rewarded appropriately by the voters.
this is democracy.
.
.
.
Sun Bin:
Too bad the coup attempt in 2004 didn’t succeed, eh? There wouldn’t have been a need to “move to the center” if that were the case.
what coup attempt? the bulletgate?
whatever the event is, it just delays the need to move to the center, whoever does this first will win the next election.
.
.
.
Don’t you read the news, Sun bin?
Defense chief backs coup allegation
it is not a coup. just someone asked him to take side and he refused.
stop george maybe it’s you that should start to read other newspapers other than taipei times..anyway what the alleged coup story has to do with Ma?
your Taipei Times link is full of lies. That is why I do not trust Taiwan media.
“The defense minister said that he had been approached by pan-blue supporters and asked to admit himself into a hospital to clear the way for a coup d’etat”
Lee did not say ” to clear the way for a coup d’etat”. TT made that up.
All Lee said was someone (retired general) asked him to pretend to be sick.
this is a direct quote from TT
“Some unidentified military personnel came to me and asked me to `play sick’ so they could carry out their plans to oust the president. But, when I refused immediately, they just walked away,” Lee said. “These people said that they came to me on behalf of `certain group of people.'”
in any other media we do not hear Lee said the words “so they could carry out their plans to oust the president”. can anyone who watched the video confirm?
3 possibilities
1) TT lied, and put words into Lee’s mouth. This is a huge scandal and the reporter and editor need to be fired
2) All other Chinese papers lied (Apple, China Times, Taiwan Times and Liberty Times — the latter is pro-DPP paper)
3) TT reporters hired some foreigner blogger as translator, who has a very innovative dictionary
.
.
.
Taiwan News has it as well. In addition, Chen’s lawyer has handed over classified documents which, they say, prove that there was a soft coup d’etat attempted.
This is not some TVBS choreographed news-conference. Anyhow, this discussion is off-topic.
.
.
.
it is not chorepgraphed. it is creative translation.
i guess you have watched TV, i also suppose you understand some basic chinese, or your friends do. just tell me whether Lee Jye said such words inside the quotation marks. 🙂
What Lee Jye has really say only means
1) someone asked him to take side and show his PERSONAL support
2) there is no evidence that anyone would take his position and order the military — that is far-fetched imagination
3) the ‘someone’ walked away quietly after his request was refused. this hardly constitute a coup. a coup would mean someone take a team of soldiers into his office, or ask him to move his soldiers.
.
.
.
A common viewpoint (which I’ve never really understood) is that Taiwan enjoys ‘de facto’ independence but is not ‘de jure’ independent. Obviously this is not a viewpoint that Ma (or the DPP) subscribes to.
Wang Jin-pyng used the words “impractical” and “unrealistic” when discussing “de jure” independence yesterday.
Meanwhile, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) yesterday said that seeking de jure independence for Taiwan is “impractical” because the Republic of China is already an independent country.
“Now that [Taiwan is] a sovereign state, it is a nation with de facto independence. For that matter, many people would think it is unrealistic [for Taiwan] to pursue de jure independence,” Wang said.
So it would seem that the KMT do not think that taiwan is “de jure” independent, according to these comments.
.
.
.
It’s only a matter of time before the CCP turns against Ma. Ma makes this bold claim on the one hand that if the KMT wins the presidency in 2008 (nice touch of false modesty, as if he doesn’t mean himself) he’s going to sign some 30-50 year peace agreement with China, and on the other, he basically says all the things that China doesn’t want the DPP to say–we’re independent, and not only that, there’s no such thing as de jure indepedent; we’d never unify with a non-democratic, non-rich, non-egalitarian China. I suppose you could say that on some level, Ma disagrees with the DPP in giving unification with China as an ultimate goal, but come on, that “some level” is down there in the depths of hell, and those conditions are satisfied only when hell freezes over. I simply do not take the view that what the CCP wants out of Taiwan is just some lip service towards unification and that’s it. What Ma says about a security mechanism and economic links–that’s all well and good, and I’m all for it–but how the hell does he convince China?
Though you’re right, Ma has done a good job of running for president lately, both in expressing viewpoints at home and abroad, what I hold against Ma is, despite his popularity, he has done nothing to clean up corruption within the KMT, especially on the local levels, and he hasn’t done anything to break the logjam in the legislature.
I don’t think Taipei City is encountering any big problems right now, but it’s funny, no one’s been running the city for the past two months. Ma’s been abroad running for president, domestically promoting local KMT candidates, and his vice mayor’s been… running for mayor. DPP should’ve pounced on this a long time ago, but in another example to back up David’s view that DPP doesn’t know how to media, they’ve just barely mentioned it recently.
I guess you can read what Wang said in several ways – but he seems to be saying that it’s ‘impractical’ to seek independence because it’s already independent. What does he mean be ‘de jure independence’? Well, presumably declaring independence from the ROC – and what’s the point of that?
What Wang and Ma have said is almost exactly in line with the DPP position – it’s nice when there’s consensus amongst the main parties isn’t it 🙂
However my main point was this: ‘de jure’ independence is pretty meaningless – and so not worth pursuing. What is missing is international recognition – that’s the only real thing separating Taiwan from a normal country.
James: Yeah – i think it’s going to be very interesting to see what happens when Ma takes control. There’s bound to be a honeymoon period with talks, direct flights, and Pandas and Chinese tourists falling out of the sky – but after that what?
As for Ma’s performance outside of the China issue: not that much to brag about. He doesn’t seem to have control over his legislators, hasn’t done anything about party assets, no obvious progress on corruption (although that’s hard to guage). He does seem to be doing a good job in slowly killing the PFP though, which he should be commended for 🙂
.
.
.
Here’s Wikipedia’s take on “de jure”:
In international law, sovereignty is the exercise of power by a state. De jure sovereignty is the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty is the ability in fact to do so (which becomes of special concern upon the failure of the usual expectation that de jure and de facto sovereignty exist at the place and time of concern, and rest in the same organization). Foreign governments recognize the sovereignty of a state over a territory, or refuse to do so.
For instance, in theory, both the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China considered themselves sovereign governments over the whole territory of mainland China and Taiwan. Though some foreign governments recognize the Republic of China as the valid state, most now recognize the People’s Republic of China. However, de facto, the People’s Republic of China exercises sovereign power over mainland China, while the Republic of China exercises its effective administration over Taiwan. Since ambassadors are only exchanged between sovereign high parties, the countries recognizing the People’s Republic often entertain de facto but not de jure diplomatic relationships with Taiwan by maintaining ‘offices of representation’, such as the American Institute in Taiwan, rather than embassies there.
I would argue that it is in Taiwan’s best interests to strive towards “de jure” independence (but, obviously, not reach that point yet).
International recognition of Taiwan’s sovereignty WHICH WOULD PRESSURE CHINA TO DROP ITS AGRESSIVE TENDENCIES, afterall, means “de jure” independence
One merely needs to look at the lack of sympathy Taiwan receives from the international community and China’s continued aggressiveness to the excercise of Taiwan’s own democratic governance to understand that “de facto” independence is really not good enough.
.
.
.
“De jure sovereignty is the legal right to do so”
OK. And who decides that? Ask almost anyone in Taiwan: “Does the ROC have the legal right to rule Taiwan?” and the answer will be Yes. (Or “Huh? What sort of question is that?”). So Taiwan has ‘de jure independence’. Err … in the eyes of the Taiwanese.
You will obviously get different answers if you then ask the governments of China, US, Russia or Palau (to pick random equally important superpowers). So it comes back down to ‘international recognition’.
Now here’s the question: If Taiwan made a full formal declaration of independence (from ROC/PRC/anyone else who might have a claim) what would that change? The decision of other nations to recognise this would still be driven by politics not ‘legality’.
.
.
.
So it comes back down to ‘international recognition’.
Absolutely.
It is my understanding that “de jure” independence requires that the international community legally & politically treat Taiwan as sovereign country.
Anything to help Taiwan towards this goal also helps Taiwan defend itself against the increasing threat coming from China.
.
.
.
Don’t pick that kind of stuff off Wikipedia. Wikipedia is notoriously bad on controversial issues, Taiwan-China (or which Wikipedia likes to call, People’s Republic of China and Republic of China, since either apparently includes both Taiwan and China) being one of them. That article sounds like it was taylor made for explaining the diplomatic fiction created by the US and Chiang Kai-shek after he and the KMT fled to Taiwan, but doesn’t have any actual basis in international law.
Many people don’t think that there is anything called international law, since there’s no mechanism for enforcement, or it’s limited to cases like war crime trials of individuals. I don’t know what kind of crap you might actually find in international law, but a democractically elected government should be enough grounds for having a legal government. Anyways, that’s not what’s important. If it’s not enforceable, then it’s not law. Even if the US didn’t have a veto, the UN passing something prohibiting the invasion of Iraq would not have stopped the US.
So what you two are talking about is basically to ways to get around the so-called “de jure” problem:
1) Try to satisfy this hurdle, by getting international recognition
2) Kick over this hurdle, call them on their bullshit and not accept that there is anything in reality called “de jure” independence, beyond what the government of Taiwan already is.
Road 1), while admirable, is not feasible. The US won’t allow it.
Road 2), if coupled with building better relations with major powers, especially your protectors US and as of late, Japan, and going worldwide advertising yourself as independent and legitimate–that could actually help protect you. $100 million a year or whatever garbage it is to buy Nauru and other allies is not worth as much as $100 million a year on hiring advertising firms to promote you in the US, Japan, and Europe.
.
.
.
James:
We agree (and maybe there is a semantic difference here).
Road 2 leads to Road 1, IMO. And that’s really what I meant.
.
.
.