Ma Wins. Now What?
- 03.26.2008 - 6:16 PMThe New York Times regularly signals changes in the conventional wisdom of our foreign policy elite. Careful reading of its reporting on the election of Ma Ying-jeou as president of Taiwan suggests that the impossiblilities of the policies laid down in the 1970’s are now, gradually, being faced.
To be sure, the Times editorial page joins in the official delight at the overwhelming defeat of the Democratic Progressive Party of the widely vilified President Chen Shuibian, who “spent much of the last eight years baiting Beijing, talking about independence, and seeking international recognition.”
With the departure of Chen, and the election of a president of Chinese ancestry, fluent in English and with a degree from Harvard Law School, the Times sees “a chance for a healthy new start” in Taiwan-China relations. “Mr. Ma has proposed economic opening to China, military confidence building measures, and “a diplomatic framework in which the two sides simply acknowledge each other’s existence.” “The Bush administration” it tells us “is already pressing Beijing to work with Mr. Ma”–this even before he has been inaugurated.
The hopes of both the Times and of Washington are likely to be disappointed. When that happens, they will both face a test.
To begin with, Ma has stated that China must dismantle the thousand-plus missiles with which she currently targets the island. He has also welcomed a visit to his country by the Dalai Lama. That is already enough to enrage Beijing, but only a start.
The truly tricky task, as the newspaper noted two days earlier, will be for Ma “to find a formula that balances Beijing’s position that Taiwan is a breakaway province and Taiwan’s position that it is a sovereign country.”
Finding such a formula will be more than tricky. It will be impossible without the (highly unlikely) amendment of the Chinese constitution, which explicitly claims Taiwan as a province—a fact the Times does not mention.
The result? The “healthy new start” that the Times anticipates will likely lead nowhere. Like every elected president of Taiwan, Ma will have to choose between standing for what his people want and yielding to Beijing. When Ma likely refuses to yield, Beijing will castigate him and call on Washington to do the same—as we always have in the past.
But maybe not this time. The conclusion of the editorial suggests that the blame for failure may now be laid at Beijing’s door.
“China’s authoritarian ways are backfiring in Tibet,” the editorial concludes. “Whatever Beijing’s fantasies about unification, it is not likely to happen soon-and maybe not ever–given Taiwan’s strong commitment to political and economic freedom. China would be better off following Mr. Ma’s lead . . .”
Following Mr. Ma is something that Beijing is unlikely to do. But for Washington, like the Times, to offer steady support to realistic proposals by Taiwan’s democratically-elected government would be a genuinely constructive change.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
March 26th, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Arthur, as you suggest, there will be no enduring improvement of relations between Beijing and Taipei during Ma’s presidency. This contest between China and Taiwan is essentially zero-sum in nature, and Ma cannot afford to make the only concession that will please the Chinese.
In short, Beijing will unmask itself soon.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:01 PM
“Ma will have to choose between standing for what his people want and yielding to Beijing. ”
his people want him to yeild to beijing that’s why they elected him.
they want trade and commerce with beijing and to maintain their independence. that’s exactly the way this whole world should be and would be if it weren’t for pundits and interst groups preaching war and hate
March 26th, 2008 at 7:25 PM
the US is handling this the way it handled NK, Iran, the palestinians: without leverage. in the case of china it’s hard to tell somebody whom you owe trillions to do what you want and china knows it. push come to shove america will abandon taiwan as it is now abandoning israel and as it has done so with allies in the past. the price of decline.
oao
http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/
March 26th, 2008 at 8:16 PM
There was a photograph of Ma Ying-jeou in CHINA DAILY with name in Chinese characters. The third character means “nine.” I don’t believe I ever before saw a number as part of a person’s legal name. Is this standard practice?
Of course, I am familiar with the fact that people are often nicknamed “lao” (old) plus a number, so that a ninth child could be called “Lao Jiu” (pinyin spelling). If Johann Christian Bach had been Chinese, he could have been called “Lao Ershi,” since he was the 20th child.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:19 PM
lester:
Are you actually saying that Beijing’s belligerence over Taiwan stems from “pundits and interst[sic] groups preaching war and hate”? Are you for real? Do you even read what you type?
The people of Taiwan do not want him to yield their sovereignity to Beijing which, as Mr.Waldron has noted, is *all* China cares about.
oao:
One thing: if you owe the bank ten-thousand dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank a billion (or in this case trillions) dollars, you own the bank.
As for Israel: billions in aid each year, selling them arms, etc.=abandonment? If only someone would “abandon” me!
March 26th, 2008 at 9:03 PM
George–The nine in Ma’s name is explained as follows. What with his candidacy and so forth, they have had to go into some detail to establish his Taiwanese credentials. Ma’s parents were refugees who came with Chiang Kai-shek. Ma was conceived in Taiwan but born in Hong Kong–hence the name Ma 馬 Ying jeou [as he transliterates it] 英九 with the Ying standing for Yingguo “England” or “British” 英國 and the Jeou or jiu standing for Jiulong/Kowloon 九龍 which as you know is the largest piece of Hong Kong. As you point out correctly, his is a very unusual name.
I have known Ma slightly over the years as we overlapped in graduate school. He is no doubt and honest and hard working man, but sometimes too eager to please everybody, and unable to crack heads. Thus he has not reformed the Kuomintang. BUT he did serve as English language secretary to Chiang Ching-kuo, the son of Chiang Kai-shek. and his successor as president. CCK was a man who grew, I think, from a secret policeman to a statesman. He had some real depth. When Carter cut relations CCK was called up in the middle of the night with the news. We expected him to cave. He absolutely did not. Instead, at the most dangerous time in Taiwan’s history he refused to yield to Chinese and American pressure to cut a deal, and instead set the island on the path that led it to democracy. For this he deserves great credit. I believe Ma will bear this example in mind.
Also, Ma has won a huge victory. He is a landslide victor and therefore has no need, political or psychological, to play up to China and seek solace there, as Lien Chan did so pathetically after he lost in 2004.
Why did Ma win? I believe it was above all because the people of Taiwan want their politics to be cleaned up. They want the black money out, the criminals in jail, the laws enforced. Chen promised this–he was a lawyer–but partly for reasons of his own, partly because the KMT stalemated him in the parliament–he lost his way and accomplished the incredible feat of making the DPP look corrupt compared to the KMT.
The people of Taiwan are sober, law abiding, not loudmouths. They are not about to give up their sovereignty or their democracy. They are accustomed to being hectored and insulted by the US while China and other dictatorships are cosseted. They are taking clear steps toward developing a defense capability that will be effective even if the US abandons them. But remember, the nearest Japanese territory, Yonaguni island, is sixty miles east of the Taiwan coast–the end of the Sakishima island chain. To attack Taiwan China would have to violate Japanese territory–which would lead to war, I suspect, and war that the US is committed by treaty to fight. The Taiwanese are not free riders.
They trade a lot with China. Just as the Netherlands do with Germany. That does not mean that unity, or even amity, is in the offing. The ongoing Tibet crisis is simply reminding Taiwan–and the rest of Asia–what China is really like. Even in the US the political elite are beginning to figure it out. (For once the Europeans have taken a lead, the French no less, and the Germans.)
Since the 1970s the US pursued first a policy of “sacrificing” Taiwan to win over China–as a counterweight to the USSR (of course after the USSR fell Russia sold all the most advanced weaponry to China)–and then in the last dozen or so years, a policy of trying to freeze change on both sides of the Strait, but particularly on the Taiwan side–we are more comfortable lecturing them than the Chinese.
Of course you can’t freeze change. I think Ma may be a bigger and more effective challenge to China and to the US than Chen was, not least because he cannot be dismissed (unfairly) like Chen as some sort of trouble maker independence advocate. Face it, Taiwan is independent now and will remain that way. Ma, with his fine English and understanding of American psychology, will make his country’s case better than did the monoglot Chen.
He has just asked for a trip to Washington (also Japan and Singapore) before he is inaugurated. A great idea. What are we going to do? State and the White House are surprised and at a loss for a response. If they let him come, Beijing will roar. If they keep him out, well, the fresh start everyone was expecting will be stopped even before the man is officially president. Shows that he knows how to play the game. Time for us to think.
My own view: hard as it is going to be to develop and implement, we need a fundamentally new policy that is based on the reality of an independent Taiwan. We have been playing games with words and protocol for almost forty years. Sooner or later we have to quit the games and deal with the facts.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Thank you, Arthur. Jiu as in Jiulong (nine dragons), the mainland part of Hong Kong.
And thank you for the important historical information you included in your reply. I understand the situation better now.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:36 PM
ecm,
One thing: if you owe the bank ten-thousand dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe the bank a billion (or in this case trillions) dollars, you own the bank.
But does the US feel this way about China and vice-versa? Judging from their behavior, methinks not.
As for Israel: billions in aid each year, selling them arms, etc.=abandonment? If only someone would “abandon” me!
That’s been the case to this point. From now on it’ll be different. If you don’t see the shift you must be blind. Jiziyah to fatah which reaches hamas, pressure on israel to commit suicide, rabid anti-semitism and anti-zionism in america, advisers to presidential candidates that demonize israel, tell me you saw any of that say 10 or even 5 years ago.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:51 AM
What has the Tibetan’s rebellion achieved so far? They are unlikely to wrest significant concessions from their Hun masters. If they put up a rough fight the Chines will pull the blinds. Then, when we next see Tibet, all the blood will have been washed away and the country will have been pacified. We should not imagine Beijing will got soft on Tibet, anymore than it went soft during Tienanmen. Nor should we suppose, as the NY Times editorial board does,. that Beijing is given to kidding itself with fantasies.
China’s view of the future is not delusional. Her economic success is likely to continue. Even if the pace slows, the coming growth will yet be enormous. In time Taiwan will be as glad to jump onto Middle Kingdom’s lap, as a baby kangaroo into its mama’s pouch. The benefits will be as great as for tiny Ireland joining the immense EU.
As to the political disadvantages, they will wither. Despotism has historically been a function of China’s economic needs. It was indispensable for harnessing vast manpower to economic projects. But in our day, as China’s economy ripens, progress will be handicapped by blind central control. Growth will require individuals and local bodies to be granted ever more decision making power. Expanded political freedom will follow. The central govt won’t disappear but its despotic features will.
The Chinese are smart and tough. They will hold on to Tibet, ruthlessly if need be, but will wait patiently for Taipei to come knocking at the door, hat in hand, asking for admission.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:36 AM
ecm- I was exaggerating for effect. no, they don’t want to “yield their soveriegnty” to China.
but they want trade and friendly relations with China.
again, why do you think he was elected? in SPITE of his pro china platform? ridiculous