For those of you who are familiar with this blog, it will not be news to hear that I am generally quite critical of politics in Taiwan and that I do have a pro-Taiwan 'subjectivity'. That done and said I'd like to turn to
Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi comments yesterday regarding unification (annexation):
Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) yesterday said the Ma government’s attitude toward cross-strait negotiations was that economic issues should precede political ones, to tackle easier and urgent issues first and then steadily move toward more difficult and less pressing ones.
Ok, nothing new in that statement except that in itself it is misleading because to discuss economic integration is effectively to also discuss political integration since a nation without an independent economy can hardly be described as politically independent.
“President Ma has been consistent on his position on this matter since 2006,” Wang said. Wang was referring to a speech Ma gave at the London School of Economics and Political Science in February 2006 in his capacity as KMT chairman.
Many people also forget that in 2006 Ma made explicit his desire to ultimately push for unification, a target I believe he is reserving for during his assumed second term. Except that now he wishes the Taiwanese to believe that that is not his goal:
Ma said there was no timetable for unification with China and that Taiwan would prefer to maintain the “status quo” until the timing and conditions were favorable. Before Taiwan would consider unification with China, he said, any plan must be given public approval in a referendum.
On the surface that comment about the referendum seems to be EXACTLY the kind of thing that will severely antagonise China since the CCP fervently opposed the same idea when it was suggested by the Chen administration. Perhaps Ma is using the visit of Obama to China as a window of opportunity to say something that China would otherwise express outrage over. Or perhaps China knows that Ma's referendum idea is for domestic consumption only and not sincerely stated hence the non-reaction from the CCP. For me the statement that timing and conditions must be right is an absolute confirmation that Ma intends to unify, in line with the core ideology of his party, the KMT and the wishes of his father. Taiwanese simply can't claim later they didn't know his plan since Ma has stated this again and again. Finally, I strongly suspect there will be no referendum as the process of annexation, that has already started, will be a drip drip behind the scenes development that is not carried out in the public eye.
Ma also reiterated his concern over China’s military position, saying the intermediate goal was for both sides to negotiate and put into effect a viable peace agreement that could serve as a framework guiding cross-strait interaction in the decades ahead.
Any 'viable peace agreement' will be signed under the 'one-china' principle which in effect will be annexation by other means.
Wang emphasized that when Ma mentioned the peace agreement in his speech in 2006, he said: “For the cross-strait peace framework to be sustainable, the political liberty of the Republic of China [ROC] on Taiwan must be satisfactorily accommodated.”
No mention here of the political liberty of the Taiwanese people, just the ROC on Taiwan. Ma's goal is to serve the ROC not the Taiwanese who voted for him.
In the speech, however, Ma also said that to create the conditions for “reunification” with China, it would be necessary for the ROC to be recognized as a “political partner under the so-called ‘one China’ framework.”
Da-dah! The One China principle was at the root of Ma's modus operandi all along and part of his plan his 2006. What he meant at the time by 'political partner' is anyone's guess but it sure won't mean mutuality of sovereignty in a Federal or EU style arrangement.
While Lien told reporters after his meeting with Hu that Ma had said on his presidential campaign trail that the issue of a peace agreement would inevitably surface within the next 10 years, Wang said yesterday that, after contacting Lien’s office, the Presidential Office understood that the “intention” of Lien’s remark was no different to Ma’s “position” on the matter.
Ma used Lien to soften Hu but in fact it may be Hu using Lien to soften Ma.
Wang said that Lien later told reporters that political issues should be tackled when the timing and conditions were ripe.
So who's in charge then, Ma or Lien? I know which one didn't get elected twice.
At a separate setting yesterday, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said it was too early to contemplate negotiations with China on political issues because any solution would first have to find a consensus in Taiwan. Tsai said it was evident that the economic relationship between Taiwan and China had long since become a political relationship.
Tsai is wrong here. The economic relationship between the KMT and CCP had long since become a political relationship.
“Our government still believes that working together with China on issues such as an economic cooperation framework agreement only has benefits, and that we need not pay any political consequence,” Tsai said. Tsai advised the Ma government that for any agreement to be made with China, whether it be political or economic, there must be a consensus domestically. “Without a domestic consensus, the foundations of the nation would be eroded,” Tsai said.
Tsai is right here except that she has forgotten that a domestic consensus doesn't have to have any substance for it to be used as a political justification. If Ma declares a consensus to exist (as he has done so erroneously for the ECFA ) and a majority of the media reinforce that message, they won't need hard figures to prove it at all, even if a number of polls point in the opposite direction.
“We want to remind the government that China’s ambitions are obvious. It’s becoming more obvious over time that Beijing wants us to pay a political price,” she said.
The Government isn't listening. Its too busy counting its future fortune made off the back of selling Taiwan's economy and then democracy down the river.
