03.24.06
Ma’s “Five Do’s”
One thing that Ma Ying-jeou has been attempting to do is convince the US government that he has a plan for China-Taiwan relations. In the great tradition of Chinese (Sorry - Chinese and Taiwanese) politicians he has come up with a number-word combination which sounds awkward in English: the “Five Do’s”. I haven’t got his original text, but they are (as described here):
- Lay out a provisional framework for peaceful engagements across the Taiwan Strait
- Push for the resumption of cross-strait dialogue
- Seek to improve cross-strait trade and economic relations
- Promote talks with Beijing concerning Taiwan’s entry into international bodies
- Promote cross-strait cultural and educational exchanges
Now compare that with this speech given in 2004:
It is my belief that both sides must demonstrate a dedicated commitment to national development, and through consultation, establish a dynamic “peace and stability framework” for interactions; that we must work together to guarantee there will be no unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait; and, additionally, we must further promote cultural, economic and trade exchanges–including the three links–for only in so doing can we ensure the welfare of our peoples while fulfilling the expectations of the international community.
Notice the similarities? By my reckoning he’s proposing to do exactly what Chen Shui-bian was proposing when he started his 2nd term - with the exception of negotiation on international representation (although I’m sure Chen would have loved to chat with China about that).
Of course, Ma has a trump card that Chen never had: He is willing to play China’s “One China” game and so start talks. However, the US politicians who were impressed with this positive attitude (do’s as well as don’ts!) would do well to note that Ma’s ideas are hardly original - or particularly groundbreaking.
Will they succeed? Well, that depends on the response from China. I do confidently predict though that Ma’s central idea of a ‘peace treaty’ between the two sides is likely to happen sometime during Ma’s first term - possibly just before some major election in Taiwan. There will no doubt be dancing in the streets of Taipei and Beijing, while analysts examine the smallprint about it all being contingent on Taiwan being part of China … and wonder exactly how it is any different from the anti-secession law.
sun bin said,
March 24, 2006 at 3:06 pm
there are some differences, e.g. how much do they mean what they say? how much are they willing to take compromise?
ma defnitely will be more successful in his negotiation, to be fair he has to thank chen for playing the ‘bad guy’ (dark face in chinese opera) to beijing, ’cause beijing will be less accomodating if there is no DPP.
sun bin said,
March 24, 2006 at 3:11 pm
forget the small prints, it does not change the daily lives.
the objective is eliminate uncertainty (possibility of war) so that people are willing to make long term investment in taiwan, and for taiwanese people to travel more easily (to mainland and to the rest of the world).
David said,
March 24, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Sun bin: yeah, there are differences - but apart from the biggie (One China) surprisingly few. I believe CSB was quite sincere in what he said - but his compromises were never enough for China. I agree completely that the DPP make China very keen to talk to Ma though.
As for “forget the small print” …
:) 
Do you think Hu Jintao will use that phrase to convince Ma to sign on the dotted line? Unless it’s something that all the main political parties (i.e. the DPP) buy into, it doesn’t really eliminate uncertainty.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for dialogue between the two sides - it’s just that I don’t expect any grand peace deal to be actually worth that much…
STOP_George said,
March 24, 2006 at 5:03 pm
.
.
.
Of course, Ma has a trump card that Chen never had: He is willing to play China’s “One China” game and so start talks.
The PRC believes that it has sovereignty over this so-called “one-China”. Ma believes the ROC has sovereignty (LOL!) over this so-called “one-China”.
Please tell me how this this a “trump card”?
.
.
.
David said,
March 24, 2006 at 5:15 pm
It’s a trump card because it allows talks to start (i.e. the PRC wont talk without it). Whether it’s a smart position to take or not is another matter entirely …
STOP_George said,
March 24, 2006 at 5:25 pm
.
.
.
Talk without what? An imaginary concensus?
And If by “starting talks” you mean “negotiating” — I’ve got a cross-straights bridge to sell you.
It is only a “trump card” if you believe that China will “negotiate” in good faith.
.
.
.
sun bin said,
March 25, 2006 at 5:25 pm
well, there will be certain peace deal, that ma could secure.
but in 2012, if ma fails in local issues such as economics, DPP will be back and the deal may not be honored — by govt on both sides of the strait.
so in a sense, even if there is certain grand deal, there will never be real certainty, unless, as you said, all major forces buy the deal. what we can hope for is this first deal will built mutual trust and pave way for grander deal later.
as for my personal opinion, i am actually split between the 2 sides on the island. DPP is definitely less corrupted than KMT (and represents the young and hopeful), but many in DPP are immature and still immerse themselves in ideology. they have already won the battle for democracy and freedom, it is time they turn themselves into a real political party. as for KMT, Ma could be the leader who changes it at last, but the century long culture and old guards present very tough challenge to him. while ma has the charisma, i am not sure if he has the talent and skill to transform this, he is not as good as LTH when it comes to power sruggle.
STOP_George said,
March 26, 2006 at 3:42 pm
.
.
.
This is the latest on what pandaMa has to say about the “status quo”:
In response, Ma admitted that in the three-sided game between Taiwan, China and the United States, each side has its own interpretation of the “status quo.”
Let’s remember this shall we.
But he said the status quo could be summarized in the “five noes” that President Chen spelt out in his inauguration speeches in 2000 and 2004.
O.K. Status quo = 5 noes. Got it.
Ma added that the ROC Constitution is the basis for the status quo.
By adhering to the Constitution and keeping it as it is, and by not declaring Taiwan’s independence or seeking immediate unification with China, it would be a status quo in the best interests of all three sides involved, the KMT chief said.
But I thought the status quo is the 5 noes? Guess again. Now pandaMa is tying the status quo to ANY changes to the constitution.
By stating that each side has different interpretations, pandaMa has effectively stated that the status-quo is meaningless. So, why is it so important that Taiwan maintains it’s version of the status quo? — especially in lieu of the increased agression towards Taiwan. In fact, the PRC now publicly claims sovereignty over Taiwan.
I think the fact that pandaMa has tied the status quo with the 5 noes is gift that the DPP cannot pass up. He is AGAIN saying that the NUC decision has changed (or undermined) the status quo.
The DPP can now make this an issue in 2008. That is, because pandaMa has now made it KMT policy that the NUC is vital to the status quo, the DPP can force pandaMa to answer this pressing question:
“Will pandaMa re-establish the NUC to pre-2000 importance?”
If he says Yes — then the DPP can claim that he is against the will of the people. And pandaMa is just paying lip-service to this notion.
If he says No — well, then it seriously contradicts his assertion that the status quo = the 5 noes.
.
.
.
The View from Taiwan said,
March 26, 2006 at 8:15 pm
gives a flying fuck on a rolling doughnut? Coming from the mouth of Ma Ying-jeou, they couldn’t possibly be anything but the same old shuck and jive.I loved the “real and imagined entities” next to his list of tags. David at jujuflop points out thatMa is simply Chen Shui-bian, updated. When you can’t beat your opponent, steal his best lines: One thing that Ma Ying-jeou has been attempting to do is convince the US government that he has a plan for China-Taiwan relations. In the great tradition of Chinese (Sorry - Chinese and
Susan Lin said,
March 28, 2006 at 9:50 am
Me and all the women and girls in our organization will support Ma ying jeou in his quest to bring peace and stability to the taiwan straits.
KMT under Ma ying jeou will win the next presidential election in 2008 by a massive landslide.
Ma ying jeou is honest ,trustworthy and movie star good looks will lead taiwan into the next decade with peace and prosperity.
For us here in Kaoshiung university, all the sorority girls say…………..FOR us here, in our heart Ma Ying Jeou is our president.
STOP_George said,
March 28, 2006 at 5:46 pm
.
.
.
Will all of you pandaMa supporters still support him if or when China adds an ammendment to their status-quo changing Anti-Secession law?
The ammendment — as reported by Liberty Times — will arrest any Taiwanese citizen that does not think the way the PRC wants you to think. (specifically, it is aimed at any Taiwanese who are “active supporters” of TI).
If this passes — how will pandaMa be able to justify holding productive talks with a country that has legalized a witch-hunt against his fellow citizens?
.
.
.
hongkong rubber pork chop said,
March 28, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Puhlease. Ma is a spineless lacky without a shred of credibility or moral fiber to his name. He’s good looking. That’s it.
I feel sorry for you little KMT-supporting lao bai shin. When the party sells Taiwan to China, what do you think you’re going to get? Nothing. No pot of gold, no rainbow, nothing but the loss of your political rights and the stain of political unreliability. There will be nothing for you. You’ll soon see that your precious 5000 years of culture, your blind nationalism and five RMB will buy you a bowl of noodles. You sorry, pathetic bunch of losers.
willy said,
March 29, 2006 at 1:19 pm
me not a big DPP fan….. but…. what’s up all these LONG LIVE ROC and follow the leader brainwash talk?
what happened? feel like we are living in the bad old one party rule days in the 70s again…
critical thinking, and judging things based on facts are what we need to do here. yeah, DPP may have sucked as government, but KMT under Ma still has to provide clear concrete vision on where they will lead Taiwan after next election… especially in the area of cross strait relations.
god bless our country
James said,
March 29, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Media is so biased it’s not even funny. Ma’s trip to the US was crazily hyped up by the Taiwanese media. Any laugh he got made him some kind of comedian. I mean, I remember his first day, half the news stations covered the crowds welcoming him, while the other half showed crowds protesting him in addition to the welcome crowds. Like, isn’t that important information you shouldn’t be leaving out?
I’d like to know what the REAL American reaction to Ma was, at least that of officials and think tanks that matter. I’m curious also how key the Taiwanese American lobby is to support for Taiwan, meaning, if Ma alienates the majority of Taiwanese Americans that are generally fiercely pan-Green, what happens to support for Taiwan in the US? Frankly, I don’t think it is THAT strong of a lobby, but I don’t know and it’s hard to say.
David said,
March 29, 2006 at 5:20 pm
James - remember that ANY acknowledgement by ANY US politician of ANY Taiwanese politician is big news in Taiwan. Given that, I don’t think the rather excitable coverage of his visit is that surprising.
As for what the Americans really think - well you’re not going to find that out from the Taiwanese press are you
As far as I can tell, he’s been pretty well received (e.g. Check out the Nelson Report that Michael Turton blogged about - which is probably as close to an insider viewpoint as you’re likely to get).
Incidentally, I’m not sure there’s much connection between the lobbying power of the KMT/DPP and the opinions of Taiwanese Americans is there?
STOP_George said,
March 30, 2006 at 2:34 am
.
.
.
pandaMa will be the best damn Premier the Province of Taiwan ever had!
Hate to burst your bubble, but pandaMa will not be able to “sit down” after Su finishes with him, Mary Hsieh Liu Cheng Tong Hsia mei mei Francis Wei une Lee Teng.
.
.
.
David said,
March 30, 2006 at 10:24 am
A Note on Comment Spam:
I’ve just deleted 11 comments from 10 ‘different’ posters - all of which came from the same IP address. Given that none of them said anything of any substance (beyond I hate the DPP and love Ma Ying-jeou) it wasn’t a hard decision. I’ve left one comment (from ‘Susan Lin’) as a sample of all the others.
This is the first time I’ve had to delete comments (apart from the obvious casino/viagra spam). I haven’t yet felt the need to explicitly state a policy on comments - but I guess I might need to do so in the future. Suffice to say that if you post multiple off-topic contentless comments, they I will consider it spam and delete them.
hongkong rubber pork chop said,
March 30, 2006 at 4:40 pm
“I’ve just deleted 11 comments from 10 ‘different’ posters - all of which came from the same IP address.”
David, I’m just curious, but which side of the strait did they come from?
David said,
March 30, 2006 at 4:56 pm
California. I must admit, I didn’t know there was a ‘Kaohsiung university’ over there (as the one remaining comment claims), but you learn something new every day don’t you
sun bin said,
March 30, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Kaohisung Univ Sororities
are you sure that one is from the same address not some mockery?
well, at least this comment section demonstrated what Lin Wei-Chou alleged, as # comments shot up when there are posts with extreme ideologies.